Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills — Issue No. 6

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Room 470, Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue
580 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C.

Present: John Martin, MLA (Chair); Leonard Eugene Krog, MLA (Deputy Chair); Harry Bains, MLA; Dr. Doug Bing, MLA; Gary Holman, MLA; Vicki Huntington, MLA; Don McRae, MLA; Sam Sullivan, MLA

2. The Committee reviewed and discussed its Terms of Reference regarding the referral and consideration of Estimates by Committee of Supply.

4. The Committee reviewed and discussed its Terms of Reference regarding the establishment of Select Standing Committees for the life of a Parliament.

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS


CONTENTS
Page
Committee Terms of Reference	35

J. Martin (Chair): Good morning. I just talked to Doug Bing. He’s about five minutes away, in traffic, but we can go ahead and get started.

I thank everybody so much for coming out, especially those that have some distance to travel. We’re all familiar with how busy and hectic things are right now. Trying to put in a few meetings so that we can report back as required has been a little bit of a challenge. Thanks very much for cooperation and for playing with your schedules to make this happen.

There are a couple of new people. There have been a few changes on the committee since it was first formed for this session. I think it has met four times, always with some very specific, narrow, technical assignment. This is a little bit different. We’re more into an exploratory exercise here, and there’s really no particular finish line, at this point, for us to expect to cross prior to May. I’m sure the work will be carried on in one format.

There are two things in particular that we’ll be covering today. Again, it’ll be more as an exploratory exercise. Maybe at this point, I’ll ask Kate to give us sort of a high-level view of what’s before the committee.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Good morning, Members. As the Chair has mentioned, this committee has met previously in this calendar year, particularly with respect to statute revision of the Municipal Replotting Act, as well as a private bill, the Millar College of the Bible Act. You may recollect those previous meetings of the committee.

In early May, the committee was tasked with examining two items related to the work of parliament: the referral and consideration of estimates by Committee of Supply and the establishment of select standing committees for the life of a parliament. We’ve prepared a terms of reference for your committee, which is just tucked behind the agenda in your grey folders this morning.

In order to summarize the work that has been done in preparation for today’s meeting, I thought I’d draw your attention to a number of documents that we’ve provided by way of email as well as in your folders today. We have prepared a brief backgrounder on the estimates process in British Columbia.

The second document which follows that is a collection of statistical snapshots as to how the Legislature currently spends its time, both on the estimates process in British Columbia as well as on some other key areas of House activity. In a parliamentary environment, time is often seen to be a bit of a commodity, almost. In other jurisdictions, you can almost interpret how a House spends its time by the strategic use of time, whether it’s focusing on legislation or the financial review of the budget and estimates, as well as various oversight committees, such as question period and other routine proceedings.

These charts that have been prepared summarize how our Legislature, in the last few years, has employed the time that’s available, during the typical parliamentary sitting, on a number of activities — financial, general House business, legislation, as well as committee activity.

At the back of the grey folders, we have a brief background document with respect to parliamentary committees and how they are currently established in British Columbia, as well as a series of activity reports for the parliamentary committees that have been active in recent years. That will give you a snapshot at a high level as to the number of committee meetings.

Members who have been involved with those various committee referrals will be very familiar with the amount of time and commitment that is reflected in those documents. I’m happy to go into any aspect of those in more detail. But at the initial stage, I wanted just to give you a sense of what we’ve provided today.

Also, on the tables in front of you, you’ll see we’ve provided you with a red binder with current standing orders for the Legislature contained within. With respect to the proceedings — Committee of Supply, the estimates committee — we also have a pamphlet that we routinely distribute in the Douglas Fir Room which, in essence, summarizes the decorum, the practices, of how that procedure works, as well as a copy of the sessional order, which actually activates the estimates process in British Columbia.

We have quite a few documents in front of you this morning. I’m happy to answer any questions you might have with respect to those documents. Or, if it’s helpful, we can perhaps have more of a discussion in a detailed sense around any aspect of your terms of reference.

V. Huntington: I noted in the referral to the committee, it expects a recommendation by October 31. Has that now changed, Mr. Chair?

J. Martin (Chair): We’re expected to make recommendations by October 31. It’s not any expectation that the committee will have come to anything particularly specific or conclusive at that point. The work that we’ve been charged with will go on beyond October 31.

There are two areas. We’ll basically attempt to split our time between them.
[ Page 36 ]

I would just ask Vicki…. Your conversations had a lot to do with prompting the reactivation of this committee. Maybe you can just give the committee a bit of an overview of how that came to be.

V. Huntington: Well, basically, since I came to the House, I’ve been concerned about how the committee structure operated and how each committee spent their time and what the independence of the committees were and whether the committees were actually functioning as efficiently and as meaningfully as they could. I have met with the House Leader on a number of occasions, written a number of letters and reports to them and others.

When there was some consideration of looking at the estimates, the House Leaders said: “Well, you’ve been interested in this issue for quite a while. I think you’d better go on the committee.” But my interest was not specifically related to estimates and estimates alone. There are a lot of other changes, I think, that could be made to strengthen the committee system, if the government and the opposition agreed.

If we are just to concentrate on the estimates, then I think we can do a lot within that framework and take, along with that, a really good hard look at how we do look at the estimates of the government and at whether we are looking at the financial picture and the budgetary process in the best way possible.

I was appreciative of the fact that the House Leaders recognized my interest in this. But my interest goes far beyond the estimates. However, if that’s what we’ve got, we can deal with it.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): I’m sure Jennifer and Kate will correct me if I’m wrong. The historical practice in British Columbia was that the estimates process was carried on as the process of the House. Over time, we have moved into a practice — certainly, in the last few years in the B.C. Legislature — where you’ve often got two Committees of Supply running at that same time, whereas, historically, the estimates process was seen as a very primary function of the Legislature.

My sense is that this committee, in particular, and its membership bring to this what I’ll call a non-partisan approach, a more technically oriented approach, a more principled approach than partisan.

I think it would be worthwhile to consider for a moment, firstly, what this committee and its membership feel around the issue of that double-going estimates process. What does it do with respect to the importance of the process? Does it reflect a changing value on how the Legislature functions generally? Is the estimates process a primary thing, or is it a secondary thing? Is it just something we have to do every year, and we go through the motions, and we quibble, as the opposition, over how many hours each critic or spokesperson gets and move on? Or does it have some significant meaning in our parliamentary process?

I’m trying to stick to the first of the two items or terms of reference: the “referral and consideration of the estimates of Committee of Supply.” Do we think, firstly, it’s a good idea to have that many committees running at one time? You can argue, I think quite successfully, that it’s a wonderful use of House time. Everybody’s there. Why not? It saves expense. It doesn’t drag out the whole sitting of the Legislature, etc.

But is it, in fact, the most effective way? Or, indeed, should we be even expanding it? Should we try and fit three sets of estimates going at the same time — in other words, to allow more time. Those kinds of questions, I think, are worthwhile for us to consider right at the outset.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): With respect to a bit of historical context in British Columbia, Leonard is quite correct to note that, traditionally, historically, the Legislature as a whole would focus, in its legislative session, on concluding not only deliberation on bills and legislation proposed, but also all of the ministry estimates that would be sequentially put to the chamber as a whole.

The process that we undertake here in British Columbia continues to be a Committee of the Whole. Just as the House meets as a Committee of the Whole when we’re on committee stage of a bill, when the estimates are prepared and at that stage for consideration by the Legislature, all members of the House are part of that committee process. It is still called Committee of the Whole or Committee of Supply.

Since 1992, the Legislature has adopted what some would describe as an efficiency measure to enable the Legislature to sit in two concurrent sections. This still enables all members of the Legislature to participate in that debate. It’s usually, as you well know, led by a minister responsible for a certain number of votes in his or her ministry portfolio. Then, on the other side, an opposition critic usually takes the lead in framing the questions that are posed. But all members of the House have an opportunity to come in and out of the Douglas Fir Committee Room, where those discussions are typically held, to also ask questions during the estimates process.

Estimates can also be called in the main chamber still, and you might recall that happens from time to time. When the main chamber is not focused on a bill in a certain sitting day, ministry estimates, such as the Ministry of Health or often Office of the Premier, in fact, can be called in the main chamber.

Leonard refers to a practice that has been undertaken in more recent years where, instead of having two concurrent Committees of the Whole able to consider estimates, the Legislature has adopted a sessional motion to include a third chamber, which met concurrently in the Birch Committee Room.
[ Page 37 ]

That was a bit of, I guess, an innovation, an experimental approach that the House undertook in recent years, but it certainly provides the opportunity, in a typical sitting day, to have three active forums for parliamentary review: legislation primarily in the chamber, and then estimates, particular votes, referred to one of the two committee rooms.

There are logistical challenges both with members and even, to some degree, with staff to ensure that those venues are fully operational, but nonetheless, that is something that we have undertaken with some success in recent years.

D. McRae: Just some thoughts from my perspective. I’ve been fortunate enough, in the last little while, to sit on two different seats in the House.

First of all, if I think back to 2009, I think this is an inside-the-beltway conversation. I think, when it comes to estimates, the vast majority of British Columbians will tune in if there’s a crash, but for the most part, I don’t see a lot of excitement in my community around the estimates process. That being said, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value.

I was surprised when I first came in to have something titled Estimates, and while everybody is given the blue binder or blue book to look at, we actually refer to the blue book with the numbers of actual moneys and expenses very seldom in the whole process. It is not that at all. It is, in fact, for argument’s sake, question period–lite.

I’m not saying that doesn’t have value. From a minister’s point of view, especially a new minister, it allows him or her to think about topics that perhaps they did not know anything about or did not think were their highest priorities of the province, but because they are raised and stakeholders are participating in some indirect way, I think it does enhance the minister’s and the critic’s knowledge of the file.

I don’t want to take away from that. That being said, I think from a minister’s point of view, because it is question period–lite, it doesn’t get the answers publicly that perhaps everybody would like. There are better ways to get answers if everybody is a willing participant.

The other thing that I would say, as a minister…. Taking away the ministerial staff is irrelevant at this stage. It is the civil servants, or the bureaucrats, who are supporting the minister during the process. Depending on the experience of the minister or the issues at hand, the number of individuals who are taken off their real duties serving British Columbians….

For example, if, hypothetically, someone was Minister of Agriculture, there will be staffers who could be actually serving farmers with answers or supports. Perhaps because their area of knowledge is seen as key, they will spend time either near a phone, on a phone or near a computer screen or TV screen watching what is going on in the process to assist said minister. Because of the time frame, you don’t know necessarily exactly when you’re starting. That hampers the preparation for that civil servant. And you don’t know when it’s going to end. Or during the course of the day…. Are you going to complete during the day?

Now, I don’t have a problem with an element of uncertainty. But if you look at, say, a large ministry — and we’ll use the largest, the Ministry of Health — the people-hours that are spent on deck for that particular ministry are, I think, incredible. Chances are those individuals will never be tasked to actually participate indirectly in the process to support said minister, but the hours that are taken from really good non-partisan individuals who are supporting British Columbians are immense.

The other piece I would push forward is…. Depending on…. I’m sure there are internal politics. You never know at the start of a legislative session when, as a minister, you’re going to be up until you’re up. Now, some critics and some ministers may come up early.

In some ways, it is a good thing because it’s pushed away. You’re done at that stage. That certainly is done. At the same time, I would think, from a critic’s point of view, if you are tasked by your particular party to do seven hours of work, it is, perhaps, incredibly onerous to do that in a very short period of time, whereas somebody who maybe is doing it two months later is ready.

The other thing it does, arguably, is…. While there is value that comes out of the estimates process, it prevents other things from going on in the Legislature, like committee work. If we’re doing three houses — with House duty in the Legislature, small House and big House — chances are, I would say, every MLA, if they’re not active at the time, is on deck to be active.

So trying to organize some of the existing legislative committees that are actually working with time frames as well is incredibly difficult. An example could be, for me, with the hiring of a Representative for Children and Youth, just trying to find the time in the legislative calendar to have all five people meet if there are three houses going.

I hope you don’t think I’m speaking for or against the process. I’m just giving some perspective about it. That said, I see value in the estimates process, but I think it could also be reworked in a way that serves the opposition, the government, the independents and, most importantly, the civil servants — and their time — better as well.

H. Bains: All the time that I’ve been there is in opposition, as you know. During my times, it was the Olympics, Transportation, Labour, Jobs and now Forests. Most of them were quite big files — or all of them.

I agree with Don on certain points that he made. I must say that my experience is that it’s quite different
[ Page 38 ]
than question period. Question period is…. A question is asked, and somebody deflects the question and moves on. I think, in this particular case, there is information that, for whatever reason — whether it’s political or whatever reason — isn’t available to the public. This is your opportunity to get that information — the real information that is needed not only for the opposition to do their job properly but people who depend on that information out in the field — and also to establish exactly where the baselines are.

I can tell you that I’ve got some information…. I’ve been lucky, I think, because the ministers that I dealt with were very good. I’m not saying others weren’t good. But, I mean, those ministers were very, very knowledgable about the file, and they did try to answer the questions directly. I didn’t play politics with my questions. I just wanted to make sure that I got the information that I needed.

I know it was a bit tricky during the Olympics days. Colin Hansen was the minister — very, very knowledgable, as we all know. He knew his file well. There was a question…. I just use this as an example, not win, lose or draw or whatever. The debate in public at that time was: what is the real cost of the Olympics? Everyone was trying to get that information. Yes, there are benefits. Yes, we’re proud of hosting those Olympics here. But at what cost? I think it was at the estimates debate that I was able to get some information which otherwise wasn’t available. That’s one example.

On the Forests side, I can tell you that the pile is so large. There are so many different pieces to it. When I looked at what was covered in that ministry, I think it was a page and a half — a list of things that come under that ministry.

There are requests that come from stakeholders. They need that information for their communities. They need that information to make some decisions in their communities, and we were able to get that information. Sometimes it was a little painful exercise, but you were able to get that information either directly or through written questions after if the minister didn’t have it.

I think it’s a very useful process. Other people…. I know I’ve listened to my side and the other side — that they have issues with the estimates. The time could be spent more wisely, they say. I say this is one of the better processes that we have in order to engage with the minister and then get that information out.

When you compare this with the federal scene, they have all kinds of different committees out there. If there is an issue that is burning, they refer that to a committee. The committee comes back…. They call the witnesses and get to the bottom of the issue and try to report back so people get the information that they need. Here, this is the only place. This is the only time that we can do this, right? Very useful.

I must comment on the staff. I agree. I mean, these are very, very busy people. The deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister have huge files to look after. Every hour that is taken out of their day is huge, and they have to go back and recover from it. At the same time, if you look at the time spent…. We talked about the Ministry of Health, the largest ministry. The average is 20 hours here, I think, in 2016. My ministry was 13½ hours, which is the third- or fourth-largest.

You’re talking about two full days, or two and a half days, out of their whole year of work. It’s not wasted. It is the information coming through them. As Don said, the ministers, on many occasions, don’t have the answers. They rely on their staff. So the information comes out, and they are engaged in that conversation. I think it’s probably a pretty good use of their time.

Yes, they have work piling up on their desk. But I think this probably would be, under our democracy, the only time when somebody can actually get some of the questions answered from the staff members, outside of the minister. I understand the minister still deciphers whatever comes from the staff, and you can tell. But I think still it’s time probably well spent, in my view, by those staff members.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Just for the information of members, with respect to the discussion about senior officials and their support and participation in the estimates process, I just thought to draw the committee’s attention to a provision in the sessional order which has been there for many years but is very infrequently used.

It is a provision under section 1 to permit a deputy minister to respond to a question that’s put to the minister. I only flag it. I’m not sure if that would be necessarily a solution to address some of the discussion points this morning, but I note it because it has been so rarely used. I think the intent was to allow a deputy minister, when there’s a technical question where a certain level of detail might be helpful to inform the Committee of Supply proceedings, to be called upon.

My understanding is it’s only been used once or twice over many, many years. But it could be, perhaps, an area the committee wishes to explore with respect to the kinds of information that the Committee of Supply receives and how to best make use of the members’ and other officials’ time.

H. Bains: Can I just ask to clarify that question? Yes, there are provisions in there, Kate. Is it still up to the minister to allow the deputy minister to answer the question, or if the critic put the question and said, “Look, this question is for the deputy minister,” does he or she have to?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Well, the provision is for the minister to receive the question, and then the minister — he or she — would delegate that response to his or her deputy.
[ Page 39 ]

G. Holman: Being relatively new — very new — I don’t have the perspective of many of the committee members. My impression of the estimates process was how substantive it was compared to question period. Maybe over time the two have gotten closer. But as a new person, I noticed immediately that it was a much more substantive, less partisan process. Not that it doesn’t creep in on either side. There’s still a temptation to make statements to your constituents or as a minister to respond.

No one here is saying it’s not a valuable process, clearly. I do note, in my brief time, that there always seems to be insufficient time to ask all the questions. I note, in particular, the independents find it hard to wedge themselves in, because the opposition, of course…. There are always more questions than there is time. That’s my impression. I see that particularly coming home to roost for the independents, trying to squeeze in when the opposition typically has more questions than they have time for.

I was just looking at the summary over time of the overall time spent in estimates during the years. I noticed that on average there seems to be a significant decline in the number of hours. For partisan purposes, I looked at the 1990s versus post-1990s. At least for ’93 to 2000, the average number of hours was 269. There was one year there, ’97, which skewed that. But even if you take that out, it’s about 245 hours on average. I didn’t do the average for the later years but note that the average over the whole period was 192.

Clearly, the number of hours spent on estimates historically has been a lot higher than in more recent years, although in recent years, it has been steadily climbing as well. But still, even at 2016, 181 hours is significantly below the average during the ’90s. I didn’t intend that to be a partisan comment but just to note that the time spent on estimates seems to be declining.

My very brief experience as a new MLA is that there’s never enough time for everybody to ask all the questions they want. I know you’ll never have enough time. But I would just make that one note. And like I say, I noticed immediately that it was a different kind of process — in my view, a more constructive process — than question period is. There definitely is more information exchanged.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Just by way of some additional information with respect to Gary’s comments, in 2001, the Legislature adopted, for the first time, a parliamentary calendar, which provided, in essence, some certainty over the length of the spring sitting of the Legislature. So 2001, on the table that you’ve referred to, is a bit of an anomaly in that you’re only 30 hours, I believe, at election year, and some transition matters really significantly reduced the amount of time spent on that year’s estimates. But subsequent to that point in time, we had this parliamentary calendar.

In some of the years in the 1990s, I understand, it was not uncommon for the Legislature to sit throughout July and possibly even later. So there was a lot of uncertainty with respect to how much time the process would take.

I do think that to some degree, it may have been influenced even by other items on the legislative agenda. I think in the 1997 year, if I’ve not mistaken, there was an extended debate on the Nisga’a treaty that had the House sit well into the summer. Because the House was embroiled in the details of the treaty documents at that time, the Committee of Supply just kept going.

If that helps at all, that’s a bit of a background with respect to the years since 2001.

G. Holman: Just quickly, bottom line, I’m taking the numbers at face value, but there’s a lot that underlines those numbers. And I take the point.

J. Martin (Chair): Yeah, I’ve got you first, but you guys can swap if you want.

S. Sullivan: I thought it was very helpful hearing from Don, as a minister, that it isn’t just the staff that are present but that there are other staff, I guess, watching and waiting. That’s interesting insight.

Kate, I wanted to ask you: having a deputy minister being able to answer — does that actually save anybody’s time other than the minister’s?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I would think not, unless there were other reforms that also accompanied a broader collection of information or a broader dialogue. The deputy minister appears to already be present during estimates proceedings, and so the only strength, perhaps, that has not yet been fully undertaken in British Columbia would be the opportunity to have more of a technical discussion on some fine details of a policy area that is better understood or that the deputy may have more familiarity with — for example, in the case of a new minister or some scenario along those lines.

S. Sullivan: I do find it helpful, I think, for the minister to have to answer because it makes sure that they actually know these things. There’s almost a bit of education that happens for the minister sometimes.

One other point was that I am very sensitive to the problem of the committees, the other committees, being unable to find enough people when all the Houses are going. Usually we’re missing one or two members. It would be helpful if we could have substitutions for at least one
[ Page 40 ]
or two members. It would really help make committees more possible, even during the estimates.

V. Huntington: Firstly, let me say I really appreciate the opportunity to, just kind of informally, talk about all of the issues that have accumulated in our minds over the years. I think we need more of this before we can start looking at potential reforms. I’m hoping that the Clerk’s office can take note of each of the separate issues that pop up in the discussion so that we can come back in a more formal, organized way to consider them.

Just to enlarge on my observations in estimates, I feel that estimates has fallen away from the budgetary issues. Because it’s an opportunity for a one-on-one with the minister and with staff present, it’s evolved into the type of discussion that Harry finds so valuable — that we all find so valuable — asking questions about programming, asking questions that would indicate to the minister: “We’ve got a problem here, and we can’t seem to get through anybody.”

I think that problem is specifically tied to the lack of independence in the standing committees, where the committees can ask the ministers to come in and go through a specific program that they’re looking at. I think that’s a whole broader issue of…. Do we leave estimates the way they are so that we can have an opportunity to explore these issues, or do we say: “Look, estimates has to come back into the arena of the budget and programming and what the intention is for the dollars that are being budgeted for within a ministry”?

I think that would be much more difficult for the opposition members, independent and otherwise, and I think, in some respects, more difficult for the ministers, too, because you’re going to have to be concentrated on the viability of the dollar being spent and the program being offered. That would be one comment.

I also think, in terms of time, having deputies, or even deputies allowing specialized staff to respond, does save time. Right now you’re doubling up on the time. The minister turns his back — some of them turn their backs for a long time, on purpose — and it’s a time-waster because you are doubling up on the discussion. I think if it’s a technical area — not a policy area — that the deputy can easily respond to, why not? He’s there. We all know the value of the deputy to the minister. That would be my comment there.

The other thing…. I think, in the structure of the estimates, we could save time if it was a little less formal. Why can’t we stay seated? Why can’t we follow up on a question when we’ve asked the minister one? And when he’s finished, the Chair should moderate the discussion. The Chair should ensure that proper procedure is followed. But we have an extremely formal process that cuts up the questioning and, I think, doesn’t do as much service as it could to coming to a conclusion on an issue.

I also think that the issue of…. If you look at these stats here, the time spent on different ministries correlates quite closely to whether or not there’s a standing committee or whether a standing committee is actually meeting — for instance, education, even health. But agriculture, energy — there are no standing committees. And if you look at the hours spent in estimates, they’re longer than they probably need to be.

So we should be looking at whether or not standing committees on some of these areas…. They are valuable because they can take the issues out of the estimates if we change the terms of reference for standing committees and enable the committees to actually examine some of these broader issues in more detail.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): I don’t want any jokes about how long I’ve been in the B.C. Legislature made, as I commence a few comments in the historical context.

When W.A.C. Bennett was Premier, he called the House, and I think, in early February or January, they sat for six weeks, and that was it. If things weren’t done, the government finished with closure, and that was the end of the debate. There was no Hansard. There was no question period. That’s the way the place operated. We have moved a long ways from that kind of approach, coming with the Barrett reforms in ’72 to ’75 — Hansard; question period; all sorts of things; the ability, around estimates, to question ministers, etc.

When I came in, in ’91, on the government side…. I say this as a general rule. My strongly held view is, now, that the worst thing in the world is to be elected on the government side the first time you sit in the B.C. Legislature. The best thing in the world is to come in on the opposition side. But you don’t have control over that; the voters do. I’ve seen both sides of the process.

Kate has already explained why the number of hours spent in estimates is so very different when you go back to the ’90s. The expression in those days was that the government opened and the opposition closed, and we did sit into July and August. I had a young family then. I can say from a family and MLA’s life expectancy, so to speak, or the expectations your family have around…. I shouldn’t say “life expectancy,” although that might have something to do with it too.

It was pretty grim. I suspect that most members would today say that the fixed sitting schedule is a reform that is a good thing. But we are still operating on a system that was established, essentially, around what happened with estimates with a new fixed parliamentary calendar, which isn’t always observed or used.

If we think our jobs are tough, I mean, just look at the statistics that staff have put together. Estimates total in 2002 was 136 hours and 22 minutes; 2003, 131 hours and 44 minutes; 2004, 218 hours and 40 minutes. Subject to
[ Page 41 ]
Jagrup Brar coming in, in a by-election, that was accomplished by two members of the opposition on their own, and liberal members questioning their own government.

If we think it’s a bit of an interference or difficult, just imagine what it must have been like for those two members to carry the can for the people of British Columbia. When you look at the estimates hours in 2010, it was 148 hours and 12 minutes, for heaven’s sake. So essentially, those two members were doing it.

Now, I want to come back to my point around having come in on the government side and now sitting in opposition. I don’t mean this in a critical way to the member for Comox, but by and large, governments see the estimates process as an irritant. It takes up staff time. It’s uncertain. You don’t know when you’re going to get called. All of the things that Don quite rightly raised.

Sitting on the opposition side, of course, it is the essence of the process of democratic government, for me, that government can be questioned at length and almost without limit. It’s why I threw out: “Well, maybe we should have even four committees going at the same time.” Yes, it would be highly difficult to manage from a staff perspective, etc., but if you take the view that only bad things happen in secret and good things happen in public, so to speak, then the transparency aspect of this is really, really crucial.

The amount of time spent on it, as Harry pointed out…. What? Two-and-a-half days on a major ministry? You know, there’s a lot of prep time. I acknowledge that. The ministers are spending prep time, making sure they don’t look like idiots when they’re being questioned, just as we do with question period today.

The inordinate amount of time that the members of the opposition and staff and government ministers and their staff spend preparing for question period is extraordinary. I mean, it is extraordinary. It’s not like we’re all sitting around making wonderful decisions and hands-on work and the kind of thing that Don’s talking about. It is spent trying to get ready for the public performance. It’s show time.

I guess what I’m getting at is I am delighted that this committee this morning, and all its members, has chosen to participate so fully and express their views on this, because if what we’re going to do is continue to be relevant to voters and people — and the declining vote numbers, I think, reflect some of what is seen as the irrelevance of the legislative process — the only way it’s going to get better is if there’s legislative reform around proportional representation and all those things. But that’s not this committee’s question today.

In terms of how this process is used, can it be used effectively? And if only 20 British Columbians watch it, so be it. I’d rather live in a system where 20 British Columbians take the time, as opposed to the opportunity not being there to ask those kinds of questions. It may well descend into an entirely partisan and lengthier version of question period. We all know the old joke about: that’s why they call it question period, because you never get any answers. Whereas, in the estimates process, you could actually get answers.

I just think from a relevance perspective, anything that this committee can do to make the work of members more relevant, increase the amount of work that members can undertake — and you can always fix that with staff, with a somewhat larger budget….

With great respect, notwithstanding the concerns around $16 orange juices and the way the media focuses on what I will call the smaller indiscretions of politicians, the fact is having them supported appropriately was one of the greatest reforms of the Barrett government. Doubling MLA’s indemnities; allowing an allowance for constituency offices, where many of us spend a great deal of time helping our constituents; the staff to do research — all of those things…. It’s all been part of a lengthy reform process.

What we’re engaged in here, this morning…. I think we should look very carefully at the estimates process with a view to making it even more relevant, not to reduce it, particularly given a fixed sitting schedule, because that’s the price we’re paying. With a fixed sitting schedule, one of the prices you pay is you have to be more coherent, less verbose than I am this morning, more focused and therefore, hopefully, more successful in doing what the job of the Legislature is to do.

We sometimes forget that the Lieutenant-Governor is our local head of state. We’re just doing the people’s bidding. We participate in different ways in the Legislature — opposition and government — but the reality is we are there to advise the Crown, the people, to do the best job possible. Anything that makes that job more effective is the right thing.

To come back to it, I really want to consider: is this — the process — the best way? Secondarily, consider what Vicki keeps coming back to, quite appropriately, around the use of select standing committees and more effective work.

You know what? February to the end of May, potentially October-November in the fall…. There are lots of other times during the course of the year when committees could be meeting outside of their fixed sitting schedule to do the kind of work that I think committees should be doing. I think these two questions obviously can’t be…. They can be discussed in isolation to some extent this morning, philosophically, but they are intimately tied together.

I, for one, would support anything that expands the work of our committees — that gives them more teeth, that gives them more opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way. There’s nothing more tiresome than listening — I don’t mean any disrespect — to some members of the Liberal back bench who make the same
[ Page 42 ]
complaints, to me, that I made to our cabinet ministers and party hierarchy when I was a backbench MLA on the government side.

We want to do something meaningful. We don’t get into this just to sit there and throw up our hands yea and nay on votes. We want to do something meaningful. The estimates process is one of those methods by which we can contribute meaningfully to the public life of British Columbia — and more importantly, I would argue, even potentially the select standing committees in terms of hearing people and passing legislation that represents real reform. Not just the implementation of some philosophical viewpoint, but real reform in terms of how public services are delivered.

Anyway, I apologize for going on at great length. I just think this is a marvellous opportunity. I only wish we had a little more time to consider this, because this is one of the few indeed, if not the only occasions that members of the Legislature in the last years have had an opportunity to address the whole concept of how that place functions.

For me, having been around a little bit longer than some members, I just think we could do a lot more with what we’ve got. We could do even a great deal more with somewhat better resources or more appropriate use of our time, and giving us a greater ability as individual members, as well, to do our jobs.

I pay a compliment to Vicki this morning. There is an example of what an independent member of the Legislature can do. Imagine, if she had better resources, how much more she could do.

I just want to make a couple observations as a new member of the Legislature. It was not necessarily a shock, but it was sort of a revelation to me how the place operates and how we do things. There were certain things that we did, such as estimates, that did seem to be, at times, very inefficient and really not that relevant to the members sitting in the committee room or on the floor. It was certainly of interest to the minister being questioned. Certainly, the staff that surrounded the ministry seemed, generally, bored and not that engaged.

It did seem to me that there must be better ways and more efficient ways to do this. This is not something unique in the parliamentary world. I just wonder, you know: are there other jurisdictions with better practices? Are we looking at the best practices of doing this?

Is this the most efficient way of doing this? Is it the most relevant way for the members to get the information that they need and want?

I applaud Vicki for her comments. I’m thinking along the same ways in some of them, and it seems to me that just doing it this way because it’s custom or tradition…. We should really take a second look at that — if we can make it more efficient.

Maybe prioritizing the questions…. I mean, it seems to me there are some very good questions, and then, it seems to me, there are time-filler questions. Is that really necessary? Maybe we should make people have the questions in advance so that people can look at them and say: “Well, yes, these are great questions. Let’s get the answers to these ones. These ones are really not that necessary or relevant. Perhaps we could defer those and see if we have time for them.” You know, I just hate to see people wasting their time because they have to fill the time available.

D. McRae: Just some other thoughts. I enjoy this conversation as well. I won’t call him the aged member for Nanaimo, but I’ll call him the experienced member for Nanaimo. He does raise some good points. But just maybe some concrete thoughts.

I agree. I like the legislative fixed sitting times. It does provide a sense of certainty. Whether you have family or constituency work, both alone are far easier to be accommodated when you know you’re going to be home, potentially, on a Friday and back on the Monday. I think there’s still a huge part of the job which does require one to be effective in their own community.

Just a “What if?” I always have thought…. Question period, the way it is — the formal, legislative question period where the minister stands with his or her small binder and, potentially, staff can send information in and they have to stand on their feet and come up with an answer — I’m okay with that. But I do find it almost a bit ironic that we sit in estimates with staff surrounded with electronics and BlackBerrys, and all the minister has is his or her paper binder. Everybody’s reading all their electronic devices. The minister either has to remember what has been passed along or write it down, and then turn around and say what they were told.

Maybe one small revolution we could do is allow ministers to receive and hold a tablet-type device along the way. It might speed up some of that process, because I’ll tell you…. I use my last ministry as an example — a $2½ billion budget, 2,400 employees, 170,000 clients that it serves and, arguably, a little bit of controversy inside and stress because of the sensitive issues that it deals with.

I would have a binder that would probably be, if you remember walking into estimates, five inches thick. If the answer that was asked was easily accessed out of said binder…. It’s all indexed. You turn to page 11, you pull it out, you pick the stuff you want to read, and it’s done. But the reason, oftentimes, ministers take time is because the question is not one of the 342 answers that you have already, which is a challenge.

The other thing is that as a brand-new MLA in 2009 or ’10, I remember distinctly — and it affected me for my time in estimates — a minister of the Crown gave a
[ Page 43 ]
long answer, and it was an answer that allowed the opposition to enjoy question period in the formal sense for days thereafter. So you always have to be cautious. While, yes, there is a chance to learn more, I think most ministers go in with a bit of caution.

In some ways, my favourite question that gets asked, whatever the topic is, is one that we don’t actually answer in estimates. The opposition member is allowed to ask said question. It is a good question. It is a complex question. The minister decides to respond with: “That is a great question. Staff will give you an answer in writing.”

Now, what I’m not sure…. When I was in my three portfolios, I never had a member come and say…. They might want the answers a little faster, but they wouldn’t come back and say: “That was a really sloppy answer I received.” I never had that.

I wonder, in that process, when ministers ask their staff…. It’s not the minister who’s actually sitting there in the office writing the answer and giving it to you. It is dedicated civil servants doing it. I would assume, because I didn’t hear complaints, that in general it was done well.

Here’s a little cabinet minister secret from the Don McRae world. I would always have every letter from an opposition member in my QP binder. If I use my Social Development Ministry, if they ever exceeded…. I wouldn’t go back for years, but I would say that if we were going into a fall session, I would ask for the six or nine months prior to, thinking those were topical. If I had nine to 15 letters, that would be a lot.

That doesn’t mean that individuals wouldn’t come and ask verbal questions or go visit staff briefings. But then you would go to the estimates process…. Especially when you’re dealing with people’s lives, especially in the disability world, I would hope — and for the most part, I think members are good at this, on both sides — you don’t wait until March to do it. You do it when it needs to be done, whether it’s a call or a visit to the minister’s office or a letter.

There are many times where as a minister, it seems like people have saved up their crises to bring to estimates. Now, in certain policy pieces, that’s something that legislatively needs to be fixed. But when it comes to people, whether it is the way they live or the business they do or whatever element, I think time is of the essence. In some ways, it would be great to have Michelle Mungall here, who was my critic for the longest time, to see whether I’m on base for what I say.

That being said, I think that while the learning is key, I also would argue as minister — and I can’t speak for all ministers — that whether you are the critic or spokesperson or just a person of interest, ministers and their staff should be made available, with appropriate time, 12 months of the year for individuals to find answers and learn more for briefings.

I know, Vicki, you were not the formal opposition speaker when I was Agriculture Minister. I’d be curious just to know, in a general sense, when you had questions, were you able to get access? Were we fair, in terms of timeliness, for resources? That is an issue.

The other thing is, yes, I think there’s a time in estimates for some political points to be won, because you have stakeholders you are responsible to, areas you want to be interested in. But at the same time, the more prep that the staff have as they prepare a minister for estimates, the better the answers will be. That binder, if it is actually relevant to the questions, as relevant as it can be, it makes everybody’s time better.

Again, just for the record — and I know most members in this room know this — when I talk about staff being available to the minister, it is a broad range of staff. So as an example, if you are the Social Development Minister, you don’t just have your Social Development key staff members available. Chances are a Crown agency, like CLBC, will have their members available because they don’t know that said opposition member will stand up and say: “There is an issue in Smithers.” This is a problem with either an organization or perhaps an individual — that small.

Chances are, there is, through the chain of civil servants…. We’re not dealing with just deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and regional managers. It can be far broader than that. I can’t imagine the world of Health, in terms of health authorities, how that would be — whether they are told to be on task or they’re just making sure they’re ready to be answering a question so they are looking good.

I agree with Leonard. This is a democratic principle where you want to be able to have that transparency of public-back-and-forth. Maybe — and this is just a what-if — what about the concept of, basically, budgeting time? We agree that estimates will take 100 hours — I’m just making up a number; don’t panic on the hundred — and the opposition and the independents will decide how to use that time. But we also try to either reinforce the culture of better briefings for opposition members, better communication with opposition members, and then there is still that time.

Maybe that allows us — to the committee time — to spend more time in other areas. But I totally agree with Leonard. We do not want to remove that process. It has huge value to the province.

Is there any reason why that binder, omitting anything confidential, couldn’t be made available to the opposition?

D. McRae: I hate to be absolute on this. I think most of the documents probably are available through the FOI, but you’re saying: “Just pass it over.”
[ Page 44 ]

V. Huntington: Why do we always have to go through FOI to get information that’s not confidential? It’s crazy. It’s a waste of time, hugely expensive and nonsense. I’m just asking.

D. McRae: This is a retiring MLA speaking now. It’s because you’re picking and choosing the things that you think are going to be critical, and when I say “critical,” probably in crisis or at least controversial. You’re basically saying: “This is what our sense is of the 320 critical areas.” By giving you the binder of what we think might be critical, it basically says: “Well, there are the 320 issues. If you haven’t thought of them, we’re giving them to you.”

V. Huntington: But you know what I’m getting at, in terms of access to what the department is doing. It’s the same thing that I find when I go into estimates: I don’t have enough information. I keep asking: “Where do I get the data on the programming in the ministry? Where are the financial statements for programs? Where are they spending the most money?”

It’s so broad that the questions I might have on how a department is using its funding…. I can’t ask them, because I don’t know where the money is going in a more detailed fashion. I’ve often wished we had access, even if on computer, into the more specific dollars allotted to the different sections in a ministry, to the different programs in a ministry, so that we could really look at the dollars in the budget.

D. McRae: Right. For example, if we use something simple like Buy Local, there’s a $2 million line item attached to it. But you want to see….

J. Martin (Chair): Okay. We’re at 11:07, and we’ve got another robust issue to address. Why don’t we take a five-minute recess, check our messages and grab a coffee. Then we’ll move on to the second part.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I also had something on some of this topic, Mr. Chair, before we recess briefly. Just in response to questions and comments that have been made so far this morning, we did have a preliminary look at other jurisdictional practices in Canada, for the information of the committee.

Generally, other jurisdictions do approach the estimates in one of three ways. In British Columbia, we have a Committee of the Whole process and a Committee of Supply process, as you know. The other two practices are characterized either as having estimates referred to a specific group of parliamentary committees for in-depth review, in other jurisdictions, or to a single estimates committee which operates more like a parliamentary committee in terms of its internal practices but is, in essence, referred any number of estimates for review.

A few characteristics to keep in mind with respect to the B.C. process. The Committee of the Whole is comprised, potentially, of all members of the House. All members of the House can participate in that debate. In a parliamentary committee setting, of course, it’s a smaller group of members that would examine the details of any estimates that have been referred. In B.C., we also have a referral of all ministry votes to the Committee of Supply.

That also varies jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In other jurisdictions, such as Ontario, where they use a single estimates committee approach, they typically only review six to 12 ministries per year. So it’s not quite as comprehensive in terms of the scope or the time that’s available in the B.C. model.

In B.C., as you know, we don’t have any formal time limits. As we discussed earlier, the bookends of the session are really the opening Speech from the Throne and then the conclusion of the estimates process as usually one of the final pieces before the conclusion of the spring sitting. Then we have a final supply act in the Legislature.

It might interest you to know that in the 1970s in British Columbia, there were actually time limits in place, and the Committee of Supply proceedings were limited to 45 sittings in the chamber, or a total of a 135 hours of debate, at that time. That reform came in, in 1973, and it was repealed in 1977.

I’m not sure exactly of the historical context there, but we have had a practice, similar to other jurisdictions still today, where there are time limits in effect. Some jurisdictions, for example, have global time limits for the review of the estimates in total, ranging from 80 hours in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to 200 hours in Quebec. Other jurisdictions will cap at a maximum amount of time per ministry estimate that is under consideration — for example, a maximum of four or five hours per ministry.

You might also be interested to know that in our standing orders even currently, there is an option under a standing order called 60A to have any ministry estimates referred to a select standing committee. So although we already have that option available procedurally in British Columbia, in fact, it’s never been used.

After the conclusion of budget debate, in theory, all of the individual ministry estimates can be referred to Committee of Supply. At that moment in time, any num-
[ Page 45 ]
ber of those could be referred to an existing parliamentary committee for review if it was the will of the…. The language in the standing order says that the Government House Leader makes this motion, but in essence, a decision of the Legislature to make that referral would see it implemented.

J. Martin (Chair): Thank you very much for the very enlightening dialogue during the first session. I can tell you that personally I learned an awful lot hearing from the people that have been around a lot longer than I have.

We’ve got a second part of our mandate, to explore the very nature of the select standing committees. We’ll open it up to commentary.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): I’ll jump in and try to be much briefer than I was in the first hour this morning.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): I’ve already commented to some extent on what I feel about this.

I think in British Columbia, to my limited knowledge — and thank God for Jennifer and Kate here to correct the record, so to speak, with actual facts as opposed to supposition — we, by and large, don’t begin to use the standing committees or the committees of the Legislature in the way they should be, both in terms of responsibility and the kinds of questions that could be passed on, the work that should be passed on.

Particularly, I’m thinking out-of-session time, appreciating, as Don pointed out…. I mean, during session, you’re trying to do a dozen things at once during the day. It’s hard to literally find the members and the convenience, etc. But out of session, it is somewhat easier.

To some extent, I think the benefit of having staff in constituency offices is that good staff can do a lot of the work that, you would argue, could be done by MLAs. MLAs could devote more of their time out of session to doing what I will call legislative or parliamentary work — whether it’s drafting legislation, potentially, in the sense of relying on legislative drafters, but raising issues that are of common concern in a more non-partisan way.

I have no idea how the other members of the committee feel, but I just think we need to do a lot more with the committees. They need a lot more authority. And the way we use them or don’t use them or abuse them now doesn’t speak well of politics in British Columbia. I just think there’s an enormous opportunity for reform. For heaven’s sake, why not do it?

D. McRae: I don’t have a ton of experience on the committee side, other than, perhaps, this one and then some of the very specifically tasked committees. But as a new MLA in 2009…. Whether it was the honour or the bad luck to serve on the Finance Committee, actually, I found it was probably the best professional MLA development that I could have asked for, for a couple of reasons.

One, it takes government outside of the Lower Mainland and Victoria, which I think citizens appreciate beyond reproach. It allows MLAs to get a sense of the magnitude of the province and the issues that are somewhat different than they are in other parts. The regionalism of British Columbia is both its strength and also adds to the confusion.

Then the end product, when you actually create the document at the end, can be — not always, but it can be — actually a really healthy document. I don’t think there’s any expectation that every recommendation will be acted upon, for obvious reasons. In some ways, I would say — now that I’m off the Finance Committee — that it’s better now, so maybe I was part of the fault in the past. But when I look at the document that’s been created recently, I think it has been a nice reflection of what British Columbians are often putting forward.

Yes, there are politics attached to it, but I think it is a chance…. I’ll use an example of a group I’m very keen on: this hospice. It’s a chance for hospice to tell MLAs the great work they’re doing. It allows people, if they didn’t know about hospice prior to that, to realize just how widespread it is as an organization and how, perhaps, putting a hospice in Fort St. John is so different from running one in, say, Victoria.

I would recommend all MLAs go on the Finance Committee for that global look. That being said, if committees were similar to that, I would be excited to do so — and knowing that there is a product at the end of it. The expectation of how that product is then dealt with is up to cabinet and executive council, I suppose.

Drafting legislation, like I think you mentioned…. I do worry about that to some degree because it’s such a specialized piece. I hate to have people waste their time thinking they’re doing great work, and then it just doesn’t meet the legal test, unless you’re basically just stealing legislation that’s been written from another jurisdiction — which is fine. But then maybe you could argue: “Well, nonetheless, it’s not a waste, because we’re just planting the seed for future discussion or evolution.”

I like the idea of finance committee–like committees doing that work in British Columbia with tasks.

H. Bains: I can share my experience as well. I think the only committee that I was on was a biparty committee on timber supply in the Interior. Here is a group of MLAs who are generally interested — how do we help? — in that situation. You have an opportunity to go and
[ Page 46 ]
meet with those that you’d never even heard from before or heard of. You go into those communities and see firsthand the effect of certain policies or non-policies. We came back with recommendations, unanimously agreed. I think it helped steer the government to make a couple of decisions which were good for those communities.

If today I was to ask if we should put together a standing committee to review forestry policy to reflect today’s need in different communities, I think that probably would be a more useful time of myself as an MLA. The industry is going in a direction that the communities and stakeholders that I’ve spoken to feel is not doing what it could do, what the potential is and the direction that we could go.

I agree with the concept here. You go around, go to their doorsteps, talk to them and get the real feeling from the real people — not the politicians, but the real people; not that the politicians aren’t real people — whose lives are affected. All the communities are affected by the decisions that we make here in Victoria. You go into a lunchroom and talk to a worker. Put yourself in his or her shoes. Our policies — how they are affecting, good, bad or otherwise?

It is something that gives you the opportunity and time to listen and come back with a non-partisan way of putting some recommendations together. Yes, there are politics in that as well, because we have certain marching orders. But you can’t ignore [inaudible recording] what you have heard.

You can’t ignore what was recorded when those people spoke, so it’s difficult for you to go around or against those. I think it’s a very useful way of devising, or at least guiding, the government in what we can do in certain areas that are key to our future.

V. Huntington: I have a question of you, Mr. Chair, before I make comments. What is your understanding of our terms of reference here? If we’re only being allowed to look at whether or not select standing committees should sit for the life of a parliament, I can make the motion right now and we can stop talking.

Is it your understanding that we can look at the health of the committee structure and making it a stronger and more useful, efficient process that enables MLAs to actually do the work that they come into the House thinking they ought to be able to do?

Are we being restricted to this, or do you think the committee will be entitled to have the larger, more important discussion?

J. Martin (Chair): I think, like the previous subject matter, Vicki, that there’s an opportunity to have a very exploratory conversation around this. After today, I could meet with the Deputy Chair and look at maybe firming up some parameters for our next meeting, of where we specifically want to go with that.

This was one of those opportunities to have a broad-based discussion involving the government, the opposition and the independents. That really hasn’t had an opportunity to take place previously. We’re not tasked with coming with specific recommendations on a specific subject matter. We have an opportunity to have this work in progress and carry forward.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Well, the interpretation of the terms of reference provided to a committee is always intended to be left to the views of the members themselves. So it is really up to your group to interpret your terms of reference as narrowly or as broadly as you see fit.

I would mention that with respect to parliamentary committees and their work, there are two things that need to occur on a sessional basis for a committee to be active currently in British Columbia.

A committee needs, at the beginning of a session, to have its membership appointed to serve on that committee. That can happen by way of a motion in the House, and that is usually based, pursuant to standing orders, on a report from yet another committee, called the Special Committee of Selection. That committee will meet at the outset of a session and name members to populate all of the select standing committees of the Legislature and any special committees that are tasked with a one-time review either of legislation or to appoint a statutory officer.

In order for the committees to be fully active, the committees also require a referral of terms of reference, such as the one provided to your committee for this discussion. It came through on May 4. It was a motion, in essence, put to the Legislature and adopted by the Legislature.

I get the sense that the committee is interested in exploring both the membership, of how committees are populated, as well as the matters that they engage themselves with, the essence of their mandate, the terms of reference.

All select standing committees in British Columbia are appointed on a sessional basis — with one exception, which I’ll just mention. We do have a Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives. Some of you may recall that that committee was active a number of years ago with respect to the HST initiative. But in legislation, in fact, it’s the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives which is the only committee with membership for the life of a parliament.

Its terms of reference need not flow from the House, because they are provided through the initiative process by way of statute. So we’re not reliant on the Legislature to activate a referral to that committee. It exists. It has members throughout the life of a parliament. But that is a unique example in British Columbia. In most instances, we need the membership confirmed at the beginning of the session as well as the terms of reference.
[ Page 47 ]

V. Huntington: Okay, thank you very much. That was my understanding of what the terms of reference of committees are: i.e., a committee isn’t a committee until it’s given the terms of reference by the minister of the day. I think that is just ridiculous, if you’ll excuse me.

I think it’s something that has to be considered and reformed. I think the terms of reference of a committee could even be in standing orders and revised if a minister specifically wants something looked at, perhaps.

A committee should be independent enough to examine issues that are critical to the province or to the people, or issues that the committee itself feels need to be looked at in more depth.

I think a committee should review subject-matter legislation. It should review subject-matter private members’ bills. It should examine policy issues that are impacting the citizens of the community. It should be able to give recommendations to government. Government accepts or denies them; that’s prerogative. But the committees should be able to look and work on the issues that affect the province within the subject matter that is designated.

I think a committee should be able to ask ministers to attend. It should be able to ask witnesses to attend. I just think there is such a broader role to engage MLAs in issues of critical importance. The fact that there is no independent review of legislation is, I think, troublesome. I believe that there ought to be that more independent process within a committee that can take a look and ask some of the questions and suggest changes, especially if it’s a critical or controversial bill.

I agree with Leonard. I think there is a much more sophisticated, modern role for committees and that this province is lagging far behind most jurisdictions. We really have to fix that issue. Passing the terms of reference about whether or not a committee stands for a session or a life…. Let’s be efficient here and say: “Yes, it should stand for the parliament.” But we need to look at these other issues, I think, even if we only are taking the first step and saying: “What has gone before?”

There have been committees that have looked at reform. Where are the reports on that? Can’t we see them? What are the recommendations if after a long, good, in-depth discussion…? And we can bring in people to help us. What recommendations could we make to government and the Legislature? Well, it’s to the Legislature. I think there’s a huge opportunity to start that discussion.

J. Martin (Chair): I’ll just say that a lot of what you were just saying does take place. I know that on the Children and Youth Committee, we have called the deputy in. We have canvassed the province extensively, receiving input, both written and in-person recommendations to the committee, and two reports were put out.

I think that with a lot of those initiatives, it’s up to that individual committee to decide that they are going to make an effort to bring people from the public or from non-profits to come and speak to them. There’s no prohibition on that.

V. Huntington: But the committee is still tasked by the minister to examine an issue. The committee can’t say to the Legislature, “We believe this is an issue that needs to be looked at,” independently of the terms of reference.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): May I? With respect to some of the comments that Vicki has made, any parliamentary committee in British Columbia, whether it’s a select standing committee or a special committee, has a broad range of powers, under the Constitution Act and the standing orders of the House, to summon witnesses or to compel documents. Those powers are very much present in British Columbia and can be exercised as a decision of the committee.

Just with respect to whether or not a deputy minister or even a minister might appear before a committee, those powers do exist, but of course, we need that to occur within the framework of an active terms of reference.

I’m sorry. The other question you had, Vicki — I wanted to comment on it. It escapes me now. But I did want to mention, about summoning witnesses or requiring documents and….

Whether or not a committee could initiate an inquiry — that is a practice that does occur in some other jurisdictions. It’s usually within the framework of provisions that are already framed out in the standing orders of the House or within legislation.

To the Chair’s point, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth has, in essence, a terms of reference that allows it to examine aspects of the child welfare system. It’s a fairly broad referral. It typically means that that committee’s work is focused on reports of the Representative for Children and Youth, but there is also a provision that is mirrored in the Representative for Children and Youth Act that allows the committee to raise awareness and understanding of the child welfare system amongst legislators and the public.

Within that broad context, which is also provided to the committee within its terms of reference, the committee has undertaken a number of special projects over the years, most recently on the topic of youth mental health.

From time to time, we will see those opportunities provided to committees within their terms of reference, and then the committee members themselves will decide how to proceed, whether it is inviting witnesses to attend or to initiate — as in the case of the Chair’s committee, the Select Standing Committee of Children and Youth — a special examination of a new topic not explicitly referred to that committee.
[ Page 48 ]

V. Huntington: Maybe if those provisions are found in all the terms of reference and that opportunity for independent examination is advertised more, perhaps…. If it’s there in all the committees, then let’s make sure there’s the opportunity to use it if the committee wishes to, which means the committee has got to be able to bring up these issues and be allowed to discuss them by the Chair.

If it’s still going to be, I guess, ruled by what the minister wants to do within a committee structure, well, I guess we can’t fight that particularly, if the majority is going react that way. But I think the committees have got to be independent and have to be able to exercise that type of thinking. I don’t think that’s well-known in most committees, and if it is part of the terms of reference, it should be exercised.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Just by way of context, that provision is not common to all terms of reference that are currently before active committees. The Children and Youth Committee is somewhat unique in that regard.

But just as we opened this conversation earlier this morning, the terms of reference is really in the hands of the members themselves, so once they have been activated, members of that committee can collectively decide to interpret it as broadly or as narrowly as they wish, which then touches on whether or not they might use some procedural mechanisms to invite certain witnesses or to have certain information provided to them. But the select standing committees’ powers are relatively unique.

I should also mention…. Vicki, I think you mentioned a couple of times that a minister would direct the activity of a committee or….

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Right. Well, the terms of reference, just procedurally…. We’re probably more comfortable in the Clerk’s office as recognizing that as a motion of the Legislature rather than a directive by a particular minister; although, of course, typically a Government House Leader will move the motion in the House for the consideration of the Legislature as a whole.

Strictly speaking, parliamentary committees are the domain of the private members. Cabinet ministers do not sit on those committees. But the actual activation motion is typically put forward by a minister, a Government House Leader in the House. But it’s a decision of the Legislature.

G. Holman: Well, I strongly agree with the comments made by Leonard and, particularly, Vicki, about strengthening the role of committees in the Legislature.

I had two years on the Finance Committee, and I agree with the comments that others have made that it was very useful. Again, like estimates…. I kind of compare everything to question period. It’s kind of a baseline, of sorts, and not in a good way, necessarily. But just very constructive…. The two years that I was involved — and, I’m pretty sure, subsequent years as well — we’ve come up with consensus reports, which is fairly remarkable in and of itself. Now, the language tended to be fairly qualitative in nature, very few numbers, but certainly there was a consensus on direction.

I also served on the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits, which was largely a very positive experience.

So my experience with committees is that they are useful. It changes the nature of the dialogue. There’s virtually no partisanship whatsoever, as evidenced by this committee, by the way. My limited experience is that we should be doing more of that, because I think the return on it to democracy would be good. In fact, the official opposition did present private member’s legislation to strengthen the role of committees. I suspect Vicki has probably done that in the past as well.

In general, I think that definitely is the direction we need to go. And it makes me wonder. If the terms of reference for the Children and Youth Committee are kind of different and they do have more powers, maybe we should look at that as kind of a benchmark for the other committees.

The other thing — wondering about my impression. I’m not that knowledgable about the federal system or how it works, but it does strike me that committees play a stronger role in the federal system. They do review legislation — I don’t know about drafting, but certainly review legislation. It seems to me that would be a very valid role for committees to play.

There seems to be gaps in our…. We don’t have an environment committee. We don’t have an agriculture committee. We don’t have an energy committee. Now, I know you can committee yourself to death, but there do seem to be some key policy issues in the province that aren’t covered by the committee system. I think that deserves some attention too.

Maybe there are some economies there by putting the resource ministries in one committee. I don’t know. Maybe you can organize it in a way that it’s more efficient, so you’re not creating too many committees. But there do seem to be some key gaps there, particularly given some of the changes that have happened with respect to the ALR, the Auditor General report around environmental regulation, Mount Polley, that kind of thing.

I think there are some serious issues there that could be addressed quite constructively by committees, and in the end, the minister or government will either accept the recommendations or not. In the end, government will still — as it should be allowed to do, I think — control the agenda, if they’ve been democratically elected to do
[ Page 49 ]
so. Of course, I believe we need to move to a PR kind of system to make that system work better as well.

In the end, government has the ability to accept or reject recommendations. I think strengthening legislative committees would be a real positive change for how politics is done in British Columbia.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Just another tidbit from the standing orders. There is a provision in our proceedings on public bills in our standing orders, Standing Order 78A, that at any stage after the introduction of a bill, the bill may be referred to a select standing committee upon motion without notice being made by the member in charge of the bill.

So we do have, as some have raised today, the opportunity to use that procedural mechanism that, in my experience, has not been broadly used. It’s typically something that’s debated at second reading stage. Perhaps a more controversial bill comes to the House. Sometimes that is one of the motions that we see, intended to put forward to have the bill referred to a committee at second reading stage for further consideration.

It’s a process in other jurisdictions where bills are then in the hands of a designated committee and a series of witnesses are then called to comment on the bill. There are many other jurisdictions where that is common practice. Although it’s here in our standing orders in British Columbia, it has not been used in my time at the Legislature.

D. McRae: I’m enjoying this conversation, even if it’s completely outside the terms of reference. I wouldn’t be upset if we went beyond our terms of reference and, in the very least, learn some things more as a committee or put forward some thoughts that were unasked for by the terms of reference.

At the same time, I think we have to be very careful that we are not dealing with the same parameters that the federal government has with over 300 members and a cabinet of — I don’t know what it is right now — between 20 and 30 people.

I just did a quick scan. Right now in the province of British Columbia, with the government — the government being all of us — there is a Children and Youth Committee meeting this month. There is this committee meeting this month. There is the Finance Committee meeting this month. There is a Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth this month. There’s Public Accounts this month. There’s LAMC this month.

Those are all taking MLA time. There’s also the occasional caucus meeting that we have to attend — maybe even a retreat. Except for the independent — I guess every meeting is a caucus meeting there. There are also cabinet committee meetings.

In theory, I don’t disagree with finding value for committees, but we can’t keep adding time to an MLA’s schedule. Even for another committee that I chair, just making sure that we actually have the ability to meet…. We lined up early to try to get ourselves into the calendar for October. And we’re not even in the Legislature. So we have to be careful what we ask for. In principle, we’re not asking for something that’s bad or wrong, but there are only going to be 87 individuals able to populate these committees — minus cabinet, minus premier, minus…. Sadly, statistically, someone’s going to be ill along the way.

If we’re going to go down this path of conversation, I think there are two things that we should consider doing. One, doing a scan of other provincial jurisdictions — not try to be the federal government. Two, are we prepared, if we want to go down this conversation, to change how MLAs are going to function? Are we going to change estimate time and maybe make some of the spring session definitely for estimates? And some of it could be for formalized committee time.

In October, if you added another committee of action, especially one that had more than five people, I don’t think you could actually get people showing up. Even today I think we’re short two individuals — are we not? — because of the Finance Committee. So be careful of what we ask for.

That being said, still, I’m enjoying the conversation, and I’d love to see what another jurisdiction has done successfully or not. Whether we — well, when I say “we,” it’s you guys — bring it forward another year from now, it does plant a seed of knowledge and interest.

In regards to the actual issue at hand, do we establish select standing committees for the life of the parliament? Yes, I agree. I think that’d be great to do. I think that’d be phenomenal. And I do like the Committee on Children and Youth, which does seem to have a bit of a broader mandate, in general, and the ability to go down paths of topical interest.

I think mental health is a prime example where it probably was not being talked about three years ago by that committee, but for whatever reason, individuals and issues of the day have decided this is something that the province needs to know about. It’s an example of how committees can be flexible and, I think, for the betterment of all British Columbians.

D. Bing: I’ve been appointed to a lot of committees. One of the ones that I’m on is the Select Standing Committee on Health.

Just referring to Vicki’s point about terms of reference and this sort of thing, we had very broad terms of reference. It was to look at the viability, I guess, the sustainability of health care in British Columbia. You know, it was the members themselves that chose to go in different directions.
[ Page 50 ]

Donna Barnett, of course, is very strong on rural B.C., so we’re taking a look at what occurs in rural B.C. and what problems they have and what we can do to fix that. At the time, the issue of doctor-assisted dying was quite relevant, and so the committee spent quite a bit of time looking at that issue because we knew it was going to come up, and we did come up with a report for that as well. So certainly, our mandate can change with the committee and with the committee members’ interests. That’s been my experience, anyways, with that committee.

I think, though, that it would be good to establish a select standing committee for the life of the parliament. I’ve noticed that in my Health Committee…. I’ve been there from the beginning, but we’ve had this huge turnover in people.

Every time we get a new person that comes on board, they have to try to catch up or get up to speed on what the other committee members have heard. We’ve had quite a few hearings. We’ve had — I’m not sure how many — maybe 50 submissions to the committee. To hear them in person is just so valuable, I find. The people who’ve just been appointed have missed all that, right? They can see the text if they want, but very few of them do that either.

Anyways, I think that, yeah, the establishment of a select standing committee for the life of parliament would be a good idea.

H. Bains: I’d just like to comment on — again, not in a critical way…. I think Doug and Don both talked about the challenges of committee members — their schedules and all the MLA schedules. But we shouldn’t forget that there are two sittings of the House on the books — spring session and fall session. If we were to follow that, which we don’t, then all MLAs would be committed and required to be there in the months of October and November for six to eight weeks. I don’t know if you take away a few days off in between. We are talking about….

I’ve been here since 2005, and I could count maybe on one hand or two hands how many times that the fall session has been called. I think the timing could be worked out if you consider, within that time frame, that there are two sessions and we don’t normally sit for the fall session. You could easily fit the committee work into that if we’re not having a fall session. Or if we have a fall session, then a lot of work can be done during the fall session, the work that we are talking about now.

I think there always will be challenges as far as the schedules are concerned, as far as appointing members, with new members coming and others leaving. But if the thought on the process, that there is a usefulness of the committee…. As I think we all have talked about, having what you call the Committee of the Whole for the entire year makes sense, and I think we could find time. I’m sure we can…. It is added work, no doubt. But if you consider that we’re not sitting in fall session, then it certainly can fit in the schedules easily, in my view.

V. Huntington: Could I just make a suggestion, Mr. Chair? I know that there have been legislative committees that have looked at committee reform over the years and that reports, I think, have come out. Perhaps we should gather those, plus a synopsis of how other committee structures work in other jurisdictions, so that we have some tools if we could discuss this in the next meeting.

J. Martin (Chair): We’ve got about two minutes left. If there’s no more commentary on this specific subject matter, is there any other business?

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): If I may just make a very quick comment, I would suspect that Kate has some materials here that were referring to, even just a general outline, what other provinces do. What are the three ways that committees are used? Estimates process. Even circulating that, in the short term, would be extremely useful.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Absolutely. We’d be delighted to. Jennifer has done a lot of background research to prepare us for discussions with you today. We’d be happy to share the jurisdictional comparisons that we have developed to date. We’re very appreciative of your discussion today, and we’ll try, as well, to tie into some of the questions or themes that were discussed, if that’s helpful to members.

I think the next meeting date has been scheduled for the 17th of October. We’ll try and get you that information as soon as we can in advance of that meeting.

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

Chair:	John Martin (Chilliwack BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Leonard Eugene Krog (Nanaimo NDP)
Members:	Harry Bains (Surrey-Newton NDP)
	Dr. Doug Bing (Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows BC Liberal)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Gary Holman (Saanich North and the Islands NDP)
	Vicki Huntington (Delta South Ind.)
	Don McRae (Comox Valley BC Liberal)
	Sam Sullivan (Vancouver–False Creek BC Liberal)
	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS