Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills — Issue No. 7

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); Dr. Doug Bing, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Gary Holman, MLA; Vicki Huntington, MLA; Don McRae, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA

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

4. The Committee considered 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	51
Committee Meeting Schedule	67

J. Martin (Chair): Thank you, once again, for coming out. I know there’s always a lot of juggling in a person’s schedule to make these on the relatively short notice we’ve been working on.

We’ve got a situation where a couple of the members who were not able to make the last meeting are here today. I’ll be asking them, in a little bit, to maybe give some input on the two major themes that we have already discussed and will go into in some more detail.

Maybe just to start off, I’ll ask Kate to bring us up to speed on where we are in our process and what we’re doing, looking at, going forward.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Members. At the meeting on October 4, you’ll recall that the committee had a very good initial discussion on the two elements of the terms of reference that were provided to this committee. They focus, as you know, on the referral and consideration of the estimates for the province, which in British Columbia, for a number of years, have now been considered within a Committee of the Whole, known as the Committee of Supply process. The committee had a good initial discussion, on October 4, about some of the strengths and some of the challenges with the current estimates process.

The second topic that was referred to the committee for consideration is the establishment of select standing committees for the life of a parliament. In the context of that discussion, the committee discussed the appointment of membership not to be based, as it is currently, on a sessional model but considered the benefits, in essence, of having membership named initially at the outset of a parliament and then having that continue, with some provision for substitution session to session or as required, to enable there to be some more continuity with committee membership and some more certainty.

The committee also discussed, overall, the effectiveness of the parliamentary committee system. In doing so, there was some discussion about the scope of work referred to committees. Committees, of course, are able to undertake an active inquiry once they’ve received, by way of a motion in the Legislature, the terms of reference that focus the work of those appointed members on a sessional basis. But there are many elements to committee effectiveness, and many of them were discussed at the meeting of October 4.

For today’s meeting, Jennifer Arril of our research office has prepared a summary document, which is in your grey folders. This was emailed out to all members, I think, late Friday or early Saturday morning. We apologize for the lateness of this document.

What it is intended to do, in essence, is to provide a bit of an overview of the discussion on October 4. And given that the committee is working towards preparation of a draft report by the end of this month, we are hoping that this document might be a helpful step towards supporting further discussion today and receiving from you some preliminary conclusions about both the effectiveness of the current estimates process and any changes the committee might want to consider or put forward.

We had a good discussion, at the last meeting, about the current process of the estimates, for example, from the perspective of private members, from ministers, from government, from opposition, from independent members.

Looking at the estimates process, we would be delighted to capture, in a potential draft report for your consideration at the next committee meeting, any observations or conclusions you might have about the strength of the current system and where you think, perhaps, there could be better use of existing procedural elements. We discussed, at the last meeting, that there were some provisions within the standing orders that provide the ability, for example, for a deputy minister to respond and provide technical information during Committee of Supply proceedings.

We also talked about the practice in terms of time management of estimates — which, of course, are such a significant and time-consuming responsibility of the House — and just mechanisms to manage that. Concurrent sessions of Committee of Supply, as you know, can meet in the Douglas Fir Room, in the chamber and, on occasion, have also met in a third room — in the Birch Committee Room — in recent years.

So we talked a little bit about time management of the estimates and then, moving into other elements of practices, looked at the use of electronic devices during Committee of Supply. Of course, members and ministers both are under the same rules as they are in the chamber, with some limitations, once recognized by the Speaker or the Chair, not to rely on an electronic device.

There are probably many other elements of discussion, but I think Jennifer has done a fairly good job of capturing the main themes identified at your last meeting. We’re hoping today to receive more direction, input, from you, particularly about conclusions and any potential recommendations you may wish to put forward for discussion.

In particular, Eric, being the Whip, probably has as good a handle on the complications of trying to juggle committees during committee work and where members’ whereabouts are during the estimates process. I was spe-
[ Page 52 ]
cifically going to ask MLA Foster to enlighten us on his experience in that regard.

E. Foster: Especially when you go to three Houses, it’s a nightmare trying to manage that. I know it is for the opposition as well. I’ve talked to Maurine on this on more than one occasion. I don’t know what the answer to it is. But when you stretch everybody out in three Houses, try to run committees, whether they’re standing committees or any committee — opposition committees or cabinet committees on the government side — it’s extremely difficult. The estimates process, of course, runs through the length of the session.

I guess, to just sort of add to the conversation, I would like to say that it does make it quite difficult to manage the House, for both sides. I don’t know how you deal with that. It’s so different than if you have a session — for example, the fall session last year — the Select Standing Committee on Finance that has to travel…. That was extremely challenging for us, from the Clerk’s office, certainly, from a management point of view. I think, on that particular….

We’ll just use Finance because it’s probably the one that most often this will come up. I think that we need to come to some sort of an arrangement. I don’t know whether it’s between the House Leaders or if we have to do something from a standing order. In those situations, if we’re going to run these standing committees, the travelling committees, we’re going to have to have an arrangement where everybody goes or everybody stays. We can’t be shorting one side of the House or the other. In addition to what we’re doing here, I think it’s a conversation that we need to have.

If we’re going to continue to run the Finance and Government Services Committee as we have…. Being a four-year veteran of that committee…. I don’t know who I upset to be on that same committee for four years. And by the way, if we’re going to talk about making committees through the life of a parliament, that’s fine as long as I’m not on Finance for another four years. I’m assuming I’m going to be here for another four years.

Anyway, I think there’s a conversation we should have. I guess we could have that at LAMC or we could have it between the House Leaders, but I think we’ve got to have some sort of an arrangement if we’re going to run these select standing committees and travel them during session. We’re going to have to either do everything in Victoria, in the building, or come to some sort of formal agreement on how we can travel.

It is a challenge to manage the House. I know, like I say, having had conversations with Maurine, it’s equally as challenging for the opposition as it is for the government.

J. Martin (Chair): Could you speak just a bit, Eric, about the logistics of having the required number of members present in the room during estimates and what the kind of snowball effect of that is.

E. Foster: Again, especially if you’re running three Houses, you need ten people in the big House to have a quorum, and then you need to have equal numbers of people in both the Douglas Fir and the Birch Room. So it’s just a run, constantly. You know, you get a couple of people away on business or they’re sick or whatever. You do the numbers, and there are not many people left. Just logistically, it’s a lot of work.

In the seven-plus years that I’ve been here, I’ve never heard a vote called in one of the small Houses…. When division is called, the agreement is that that vote will be taken when the House reconvenes. If that continues to be the method that we use, then I don’t see that it’s a big issue. People aren’t going to get caught, one way or the other.

This is, of course, speaking for the government side, because it’s not so much of an issue for the opposition. If they decided they wanted to jam things up, they’d run four people into the Douglas Fir Room and call a division. But by agreement, that hasn’t happened. As long as we continue to do that in a “gentlemanly” fashion — which we have done in the seven years that I’ve been there; it’s been very organized and professional — then I don’t see it’s an issue.

If it becomes an issue, then we’re going to have to either set some hard rules…. I mean, it will just make life that much more difficult for everybody. But to this point, it’s worked very well, because it’s been done by agreement.

J. Tegart: I really don’t have much to add. Talking to other people in other provinces in regards to how their process works…. I understand that they do processes differently than we do. I’ve read some of the information that came out, and I wonder: is it the consensus of this group that what we’re doing right now is working for everybody?

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): I suspect it would be fair to say that it works after a fashion, but do people think it needs improvement? Yes.

One of the things that we didn’t discuss…. It just popped into my little head only because it’s used every place else and because of the concerns raised by the government Whip this morning. It’s the question of pairing, which is what many parliaments and legislatures do so that you don’t run into these problems — so if you do have a committee out on the road with significant numbers and the margins are narrow, etc.

I mean that’s, with respect, what civilized parliaments tend to do. It’s not something that’s been practised in British Columbia. As we all know, we’re regarded by staffers who come from other provincial legislatures and who’ve worked for various caucuses…. They would say it really is a blood sport out here.

Perhaps that’s the job of this committee — to try and take a little bit of blood out of the sport. I think that’s just
[ Page 53 ]
a tiny aspect that we could consider. I appreciate all the concerns raised by Eric around numbers and how difficult that becomes. Nevertheless, my view is that — and this is entirely personal — sometimes what we do in the House, particularly around debates, may make us all feel very good, but you’re speaking to an audience that’s not listening, particularly.

Hansard, God bless them, are recording it for everybody, and it’s available for British Columbians. But I’ve often felt that a strong, functioning committee system would be a far more effective contribution to governance in British Columbia than perhaps some of those things that we do in the House when we all do our half-hour rail on whatever bill happens to be coming up around second reading.

E. Foster: Leonard, on the issue of pairing, I’ve asked this question to others, and you may have the answer for me. I have an example. If this committee was on the road and we had pairing and I showed up — if I didn’t go to the committee meeting, and I showed up at the House to vote: do I get to vote?

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): I’ll let the Clerk answer it directly, but I think it’s fair to say that the concept is no. If you’ve paired, you’ve paired, and neither you or the member opposite you’ve paired with would be voting.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations): Yeah, only to say I did do some research on this, and I will send what I found. In essence, if I remember correctly — and this happened in the House of Commons, federally — the Speaker ruled that if a member shows up and wants to vote, he has the right to vote, whether they’re paired or not. It’s not a binding arrangement, if I remember correctly. I will find that.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): That’s my recollection as well. It’s a private arrangement between members.

It’s typically coordinated by party Whips. But it doesn’t prevent a member, if he or she chooses, to step out of that premade arrangement and cast a vote. There’s no restriction preventing that.

E. Foster: Essentially, there’s a trust in there that works as long as everybody is trustworthy, I guess.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I think there are some jurisdictions that formalize it in the standing orders, which describe a particular process for agreement and sign-off so the consent of the members and his or her Whip would be in place. You can have a written formalized process, but at the same time, I don’t think that even when it’s formalized in standing orders that it prevents a member from casting a vote if he or she opts to do so.

E. Foster: I think it’s an excellent idea on a whole lot of levels. We have people on both sides of our House that can’t get home on Thursday if they don’t leave early. For us, that’s…. I mean, you just don’t get to go. My job is to make sure that I can’t lose. But if we get into that arrangement, Robin could leave — he can’t get home if he leaves at seven o’clock or six o’clock — and somebody from our side could get home.

It would make everybody’s life a whole lot easier and more effective for those who can’t get home, so I would be happy to enter into that conversation on an official level. I think it would make things work a lot easier, smoother.

Then we could have committees working off-site during session. I tend to agree with Leonard. I think that we get as much done or more done having these conversations without the Academy Award nominations.

V. Huntington: No. I think that makes sense. I thought that there was always an informal agreement, basically, that that would be the case, but I understand not. I certainly knew it was in the House of Commons.

V. Huntington: Yeah. Either that, or you change the standing orders and you don’t vote during the, say, estimates discussions.

D. McRae: Are we just talking about pairing, or are we talking about everything?

D. McRae: Okay. Just some thoughts floating around. Just to go through it on pairing, I think pairing is a great idea for the arguments that Eric uses, for sure.

The other thing I was thinking, when I was reading the documents last night at 11 o’clock at night, was along the lines of: let’s assume in May 2017 that government — and for the sake of argument, we’ll say government in general — has a majority of two. How do we function in the Legislature when there’s not a lot of space for government to play? I think the rules that we make or we recommend
[ Page 54 ]
from this committee have to deal with the “worst-case scenario” going forward.

The trust element is great. In this parliament, perhaps because there are many members who are long-serving, there is a lot of trust and leaders who are well-experienced in the British parliamentary way. But who’s to say? Very quickly, in three years, the world can change. We saw it change very quickly on both sides in the last Legislature session — of leaders. Now, it didn’t change for the worse; it has changed. You don’t know how to predict these things.

I do agree, along the lines that travelling committees, like Finance…. Eric’s four-year purgatory stint has been phenomenal. But it is the one committee where I can say, without a doubt, that it travels around the province and brings government to the people in communities large and small. And it is appreciated.

I know it was in my community not too long ago, and groups that would never have come before this many MLAs in their life had that chance. They do feel there is value, and I love the idea of expanding that to some degree.

The one question I do have, myself, is, because the Legislature is not sitting…. Hypothetically speaking, I always wonder: how do we allow the committees to go forward in times like now? Can we have a scenario where we formalize, for lack of a better way of saying, on-deck members, to use a baseball analogy? If a person is ill or indisposed for an extended period of time but still an MLA, can we bring other members into committees?

If we use a small one, like the hiring committee I’m doing with the Representative for Children and Youth…. It’s a committee of five. If one person were to be incapacitated for a short period of time, it would be nice to know that we didn’t have a huge stress to get another person on. Five is not a large committee, and the insight that the individuals bring are intense — though they would not be privy to, perhaps, the information of before.

Other thoughts. I was thinking, just in the general sense, I do like the idea of — as I look through the chart we have, the big paper one there — the element of a set number of hours for estimates or a set number of committees. I think that’s maybe our wonder as we go forward. Can we create a world where, if we reduce the amount of estimates times, we can do other things with the time in the Legislature?

For example, when I read…. I think it was one of George MacMinn’s articles talking about how estimates times were, I think, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. I can’t remember the days. But those mornings were not for traditional Legislature time. I thought: could we formalize, perhaps, the Legislature day? Estimates hours, if we were to go forward in the spring session, if that’s the traditional time, would be in the afternoon, and committee time — whether it’s Tuesdays, Thursdays or, potentially, even Mondays — could be used for more committee work in that chunk.

I think one of the things that some of the members may ask for in this committee is: is there an opportunity to call memberes to various committees? It’s not a part of our mandate, I believe, but if we’re playing with the estimates structure, perhaps this could be our opportunity to introduce that ability as we go forward — or perhaps to review legislation. And I do like….

The last piece was — I had a note to myself — I agree with Eric. It’s been very nice that we haven’t called division in the small House or the extra, extra small House in the seven years here. But I know, as a government member — or cabinet person, perhaps, answering questions in estimates — that all of a sudden you start seeing a number of the opposition members coming into the room. You think: “Why are there now seven or eight of them and there are two or three of us? And one of us went to the bathroom. Now I’m not feeling so good about everything.”

It turns out, all the time, that it’s usually transportation or very particular constituency issues. But you know, as a government member, you don’t want to be the one to have the holy crap example. Excuse me, for Hansard.

That being said, I do like the honour, but is there a way we can provide that certainty to the House Leaders and the Whips, to make sure that there is no division going forward? Again, not for the individuals who are here today but those who will be there five, ten, 20 years from now going forward.

V. Huntington: If we’re going discuss our thoughts from last meeting and with the material, I think, firstly, we have to separate discussions around the standing committees as a whole and the estimates. We have to decide: are we bound by the terms of reference regarding dealing with estimates, or can we broaden the discussion of standing committees? I think the two discussions are somewhat different in content.

One of the things I wouldn’t mind hearing from the Clerks is…. What I noticed in the reading is that…. It seems to me some of the discussion, especially in Mr. MacMinn or some of the older papers…. It seemed to me that for a lot of those, that discussion had already been implemented. I’d like to know: what is a recommendation and not implemented versus when did we change the system last, and was it based upon MacMinn’s comments or other committees’ comments? It seemed to me that we’re doing things much as some of those papers described, now.

The other issue with regard to…. I have a lot to say about committees, but if I stick to estimates right now, there is a lot of discussion over the years on how to approach estimates. I would like to think that we could look at what the material is and what the suggestions have been, rather than disappearing to a whole new discus-
[ Page 55 ]
sion from the ground up again, and make use of previous discussions and thinking.

In that respect, what I started to notice is that there were two approaches to estimates that seemed to be standard in almost everything. Those approaches came up in the last meeting too.

Members really liked — the opposition in particular — the opportunity to be able to directly question a minister on various issues and programs and policies. That was one aspect of the estimates as they stand today that was generally appreciated. And through almost every single paper in here, that’s a common reflection throughout, from either MPs or MLAs or MPPs across the country.

The other thing was the recommendation — and they do this in Ontario and a couple of the other provinces — where you also have a standing committee on estimates. And there’s a decision made between House Leaders where, say, you had 12 ministries. Often they’ll say six ministries go to standing committee this year for discussions so that there’s a more focused, definitive examination of a few ministries rather than everything.

I was thinking that perhaps we could take a look at a combination whereby you had, say, 50 percent of the time where a critic or members could ask questions of the minister in a broader, more informal arena, and then the remaining time would be spent in a standing committee examining fewer ministries in depth and sort of create a combination, a combined approach to how the estimates might work.

That might also start corralling the number of hours that can be spent and much more easily determine that there’ll be this amount of time for general questions by members of the minister and/or deputy — I think we have to talk about the time saved if the deputy and senior officials can answer questions; I think it would save up to 50 percent of the time we spend in estimates — and then move into a more discrete, focused discussion in standing committee on fewer ministries.

That would be my discussion of the way I’d like to see a discussion of estimates unfold. There was one other question that the Clerks might be able to answer. It was spoken about in a couple of the reports. They talked about a block system being used. I think it was the House of Commons. I’m not sure which. But I’d like an understanding of what that meant.

I won’t go on right now, but if we do start talking about standing committees, I would like an opportunity….

V. Huntington: Yeah, I think so. But I have a lot to say about this jurisdictional chart, which I really appreciated, by the way.

Thank you for the discussion this morning, Members. There are a lot of interesting comments that have been made. I’ll try and address a few of them.

With respect to estimates, I should mention the discussion on pairing speaks to the opportunity to manage the risk of unforeseen divisions and those kinds of things in a dynamic parliamentary setting. You might remember that for private members’ business on Monday mornings, there is a provision in the standing orders to defer any divisions taken till half an hour before adjournment time. So there are ways to manage.

There are two things. The question is: is there an interest in the committee to manage the representation of parties within the estimates room, or is it managing the risk of an unforeseen division? With respect to the divisions, there is an ability…. Of course, if a number of members are seeking to move an amendment to the vote under debate, they can call a vote.

The mechanism to deal with that is that we would have a practice that’s already in place whereby any member can ask for a standing division in a committee room, including the Douglas Fir Room. When that happens, all other proceedings are suspended. The main House would take a recess, and the members who are members of the Committee of Supply would come to the estimates room for a standing vote.

So although there is a lot of unpredictability for the Whips to manage, in terms of the number of members in that room, that mechanism that already exists manages that risk of division calls that might come up without a lot of notice. I just wanted to mention that, because it might be something that effectively addresses that concern.

With respect to the calling of memberes, I made a note that that had already been raised, as well, this morning. The provision to refer a particular vote within the ministry estimates to a standing committee exists. That’s Standing Order 60A, which we discussed last week. On a trial basis, it might be something for the committee to consider: whether or not some aspects of the estimates could be referred to a standing committee in a forthcoming session or parliament to assess how effective that is.

By moving it into a parliamentary committee setting and moving it away from a more formalized Committee of Supply discussion, you give the members of that parliamentary committee the ability to call memberes and to have a broader-based discussion and then report back the conclusion, presumably, of those votes to the House to be folded into the usual process.

It might provide an opportunity for the members to compare what that dynamic is like with…. Certain ministries being referred into the more informal setting of a parliamentary committee gives us more flexibility with
[ Page 56 ]
the rules and practices as compared to the formal proceedings in the House.

With respect to some of the evolution in British Columbia since the time of the MacMinn reports…. As you can see, Mr. MacMinn was appointed quite formally, under something called the Legislative Assembly procedure act, to act as a commissioner and to review, in a high level of detail, a lot of the provisions that were in place at the time, the 1970s.

As we discussed at the last meeting, British Columbia has had some experience with time limits — at one time, the early ’70s, imposing time limits on the amount of hours or number of sittings for the estimates debate — and then that was changed in 1977. In 1985, in essence, was the last time we had a significant review or changes to standing orders in British Columbia.

We have a copy of another report that seems to have made more broad changes to the way parliamentary practice in British Columbia has occurred as compared to the MacMinn reports. The MacMinn reports were commissioned, but they did not result in wide-scale change to practices of the day.

Over the years, we’ve seen a lot of different changes in terms of the naming of the different standing committees — from a very broad-based sectoral model, with all of the ministry departments reflected in the names, to more of a condensed list and the increased use of special committees. That was more how some of the observations of the MacMinn report played out.

By 1985, the Legislature had activated this committee, the Parliamentary Reform Committee, and it delved into a number of standing order changes which came forward into the House and were unanimously adopted in 1985. We see a lot of those changes, which are still on the books here today.

We can go into more detail about what happened in 1985. For a variety of reasons, I think, including almost the culture and capacity of the Legislature in the 1970s, a lot of the MacMinn recommendations, as well thought out and as carefully prepared as they were, didn’t find traction. It wasn’t until the members revisited the issues in the 1980s that we see the remnants of the current select standing committee system starting to be put into place.

V. Huntington: Could I just make one brief comment with regard to something Kate said? That was that the estimates committee could always look at referring something to a standing committee.

The problem with that is…. In the way those committees would work now, they are so partisan in terms of…. The majority being the government, you just would not see a reference to another committee. The ability, under our present system, to informally discuss something that’s of interest publicly and governmentwide just isn’t there. We’d have to completely change how the two parties look at a discussion of importance to the people.

It’s just not there right now, so I can’t see looking at referring to a standing committee as something that would be viable. I think you have…. Again, I’ll go back to the concept of, perhaps, a two-part system where you would have a separate standing committee on estimates and where the two parties would have decided which six ministries might have a focused attention that parliament or that session and go from there. I don’t think it would be viable.

Just a comment on Kate’s…. Others may have a different opinion. For me, watching as an independent…. By the way, just in terms of Don’s comment, too…. I think there are certain committee members appointed to Committee A and Committee B, and I think they’re the voting members. I’m not sure about that, but I believe that’s the case.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): Just to speak to Vicki’s point. I came from the Ontario system where estimates, as you know, are referred to a single committee.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): It’s a three-party system, to start with, and each party chooses the estimates that it wants to review. However, all three parties ask questions. So government members ask questions of the minister, and the opposition…. And there are time limits. For example, it’s done in rotation, and maybe it’s ten minutes for each party to ask questions. There are time limits on how long they can consider a certain ministry, so the maximum would be 15 hours. Usually, the parties would split that and choose two ministries for 7½ hours.

However, in terms of non-partisan, that word doesn’t exist. It is an incredibly partisan, divisive process. When government members are asking questions of the minister, they’re going to ask questions that’ll make the ministry look good, because they want to use up that time, as well, whereas the opposition will ask questions that, of course, are going to be difficult for the minister to answer. They want to challenge the minister.

In addition, the government will choose ministries that aren’t controversial. So your review of that process….

It’s limited. They’re also limited to only sitting when the House gives them permission to sit. If the House is in session, they can sit Wednesday afternoons and Tuesday afternoons. If the House is not in session, they need a motion from the House to let them sit during the summer. So the time available for them to review the estimates is really limited. They have to report back by November, so the majority of ministries are not reviewed. You get a handful of ministries that are reviewed in, I would say, a fairly partisan way and not a very thorough way.

Having seen the system here, which is more in depth…. Yes, there are advantages to both, but what I saw of the
[ Page 57 ]
experience in Ontario won’t, I don’t think, provide what you’re looking for in an estimates process.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): Oh, for sure…. Yeah, there are different ways of structuring it, certainly.

When we got the breakdown of the themes…. We’ll be moving forward with this, as the report and some recommendations. Is there anything in particular that people want to highlight that is something that they absolutely want to make sure is part of the best practice or the recommendations from other jurisdictions?

G. Holman: I don’t feel I have enough experience, really, as an MLA, to necessarily contribute a lot to the committee in terms of how things should work.

From what I’ve heard, I’m not convinced that the current process for estimates isn’t the best way to proceed. In my brief experience as an MLA, I really like the fact that every ministry is under scrutiny and that questions can be brought, ranging anywhere from the actual numbers to policies to specific concerns in specific constituencies. I like that. I haven’t heard anything yet — I’m always open to being educated — that convinces me there’s a clearly better system, especially after hearing from Susan about the Ontario model.

I have one question about private members’ legislation. Is that beyond the purview of this committee to consider that? What I’m thinking of is the federal model, where it appears that at least some private members’ legislation put forward by opposition parties actually gets debated and voted on. Probably not very often do PMBs get approved at the federal level, either, but there seems to be a process in place there where good ideas can actually get debated and voted on in the House. But I don’t know if that’s beyond the purview of this committee.

J. Martin (Chair): Yeah, to deal with it specifically is probably above and beyond what we have in front of us, but certainly it’s something that you should be comfortable putting forward.

G. Holman: Mr. Chair, is that an issue that…? If it was going to be considered, would it be this committee that would do the considering and the recommendations about that?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I would anticipate so. In terms of the mechanisms that the House uses to consider legislation, it would fall within the standing orders. Currently, there’s a well-known process which is included in the current standing orders.

Picking up again on the theme of utilization and whether or not there’s merit in assessing the utilization of standing orders that exist but are not, currently, frequently used in British Columbia, we did have a mention at the last meeting about an opportunity for a bill to be referred to a select standing committee for consideration at any stage of debate on a motion being made by the member in charge of the bill.

So just the notion of a private member’s bill…. In theory, there could be a proposal made by a member in charge of a bill to refer that bill to a select standing committee, whether or not there is an interest amongst the majority members to see it go to a select standing committee. There is a mechanism by which we could see the House do its work differently, but we just have not yet, in British Columbia, seen the application of some of those rules that already exist.

I actually appreciated the conversation earlier. I can’t recall if it was Eric or Don who mentioned the notion of flexibility of standing orders, if you had, say, the party standings to be completely different in a new parliament. I think that’s the test of a good set of standing orders: whether or not they can work effectively well and have some adaptability and flexibility should party standings change significantly.

I remember in 2001, of course, we had a very lopsided electoral result that year with only two opposition members. There were a number of changes that were made to adapt current standing order provisions to respond to the reality of the House at that time and the fact that the opposition members, although very small in number — only two — were able to fully participate in debates and use the mechanisms that are provided in the standing orders.

I’m hopeful that the standing orders will provide some flexibility if used effectively. And let’s say, through your committee’s deliberations, if we can recognize opportunities to make better use of things that are currently on the books and have been ignored for years or perhaps need to be re-emphasized, there could be some good opportunities there for changes going forward.

G. Holman: I guess my view is obviously tainted by the fact that I’m a member of the opposition and that’s been my experience at the Legislature. My preference would be for government not to have total control about what even gets considered as legislation in the House. I think I’m understanding what you’re saying — that the current standing orders allow that to happen, but it will only happen if government decides it will happen.

Whereas what I think I understand is that at the federal level there’s some, at least, modest opportunity for op-
[ Page 58 ]
position members to at least have legislation considered. In the end, it will come to a vote, and government can control the outcome of that clearly and obviously. But at least, it seems to me, federally there’s an opportunity to consider, even if only modestly, some ideas from the opposition. Government, in the end, can vote them down, but at least it gets past the introduction stage and actually gets debated in the Legislature.

J. Martin (Chair): I think it’s totally appropriate to have the discussion if something of that nature should come to this committee. I don’t think we should speak directly to that subject matter right now, as it is quite significantly outside the boundaries of our terms of reference. But the notion of it being referred is certainly appropriate.

E. Foster: To the question of the referral, I think that Gary brings up a valid point for discussion. How does it then get referred to this committee for discussion?

J. Martin (Chair): That would normally be with some discussion between the House Leaders.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes. Formally, a motion in the House would refer ongoing examination of any issues related to the changes to the standing orders to this committee. It could be an ongoing reference, theoretically, to have this committee undertake a regular review of all standing orders or, as you’ve received just this year, specific elements to the standing orders for examination, review, report back to the House.

D. McRae: Just in terms of the terms of reference. I think, just to reiterate, the idea of appointing people to a committee for the life of the session or the parliament is something I would be supportive of.

J. Martin (Chair): Can we keep that separate from the estimates? I was thinking after a break we could specifically address that, just so that we don’t kind of smudge the two running into each other.

In regards to the estimates, my preference would be…. This is personal preference. I like the idea of having a set number of hours for estimates. I like the idea. When I look across the list, I think maybe Quebec at 200 hours is too much. But I like that in Ontario, they have the 90 hours.

For lack of scientific reasoning, I would say, 100 hours for ministries, with having the House Leaders divide the time up and budget it, with a maximum of ten hours for a ministry. I think if there are issues of note within a ministry, I think in five or ten hours you could find it. And using the extra time…. I would use the mornings — if you wanted to use it hypothetically — of the legislative sitting time for maybe more of a robust committee structure going forward. But by having a set number of hours, especially in the spring session, you do allow for places like the Douglas Fir Room — and MLA time — to be used more.

I think, overall, I am cautious of how much time and energy and individuals there are in the Legislature to divvy up the workload.

J. Martin (Chair): In your experience when you were minister, you were given, in my understanding: “Don, you’ll probably be done sometime tomorrow afternoon.” So you were kind of given the maximum it’s likely to go, but you were never supplied with a specific number of hours.

D. McRae: When I was minister, there was no guarantee. And sometimes my impression was — though perhaps members opposite would enlighten me on this — it was a work-in-progress continually. So sometimes you were thinking — with good reason — it was going to end on Thursday afternoon, but no, it did not end on Thursday afternoon. It would resume again on Monday afternoon coming back.

I think for the most part, people tried to use their time allocations. But sometimes you also finished surprisingly early, and then they have to run and get, perhaps, another minister, who is on deck, who thought you were there for four or five hours but only there for two to come and be ready. They’re there. It’s doable, but it was not a set-in-stone system, by any stretch.

V. Huntington: It looks as if what we’re looking at is, perhaps, smaller, more specific changes. That seems to be the direction of the discussion, and looking at number of hours is perhaps something. I’m not sure I agree with the 100. I think we have to look at…. If we’re not focusing on ministries, then you have to provide enough hours to make it meaningful.

I think, too, that a change that we could make that would really speed up the process and provide better information would be to allow deputies and senior officials to respond. It’s permitted already, but, by tradition, it doesn’t happen. I think we should open up that tradition and get this whole process moving. I mean, 50 percent of the time is wasted just by virtue of turning the back to the committee and whispering and then saying whatever.

I think you’d get better information, you’d get speedier information, if that were a discussion we could have. Then maybe you can open up a referral of the committee to standing committees. But again, that’s going to be a partisan decision, and I doubt whether it would be a meaningful change.

One other piece of information, too, that’s throughout the document is the quality of briefing material or briefings that the members of the committee get. Gingell once mentioned that the information at the voting level is so aggregated that it’s almost impossible to use appropriately for good questioning. I mentioned that last time, that if we could get down into the program levels for information, it would be much more useful at the estimates level.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): With respect to the suggestion of a limit of 100 hours, obviously — to use my friend’s phrase but change it slightly — as opposed to being tainted by the opposition, I would prefer that it be informed by being a member of the opposition. Those 100 hours would be entirely inadequate, certainly under our present system.

My preference is that every minister should be on deck to be responsible for what happens within their ministry. As we all know, depending on the nature of the political cycle and what happens in some sector of the province, the economy or government, what may be seen as a non-controversial ministry suddenly becomes a controversial ministry, one where the public wants to know something. So I think that’s my preference.

I recognize, however, that having moved to a fixed parliamentary calendar — unlike the days of old when the government opened and the opposition closed — estimates can’t go on forever. So it seems logical to impose some reasonable limit. Frankly, if you can always use the phrase that it’s “up to 200 hours….”

Maybe it’s a non-controversial year, or the opposition is weak or tired, or whatever the case may be, and you don’t use the maximum number of hours. That’s a consideration. But I can’t say I’d want to move to a system that was as limited as proposed by Mr. McRae. I’m sure he was just negotiating publicly here today.

With respect to what our friend has had to say…. I think what we’re really all striving for here, which I think is the most important thing that I’ve heard, indirectly…. And I’m saying that like a psychologist says: “I think I hear you saying….” I think I hear everyone here saying that they’d like to see a more effective use of the estimates process.

With respect to what Vicki said, I just pose this as a question: is there anything wrong with the deputy answering a question, as is allowed but not done in practice — or the assistant deputy or whoever answering a question that may be of a largely technical nature — and, frankly, the minister having the right, at any point, pursuant to rules that would be approved by the Legislature, to literally shut the deputy down and take it over?

If the deputy is wandering into something that’s political or making a mistake that’s going to hurt the government, one could understand perfectly the minister stepping in and cutting them off and taking over the completion of the answer. But apart from that, Vicki is absolutely right.

I mean, the amount of time that you’re looking at the minister’s back, so to speak…. Depending on the minister and depending on the level of experience and political acuity, etc., you spend a heck of a lot of that time now twiddling your thumbs on one side with everybody huddled over there — sometimes, with great respect from the opposition’s perspective, answering a question which is actually not terribly complex and relatively straightforward. Why not just get to the answer? Sometimes, it’s really nothing more than that. It’s just getting to an answer.

You’ve got a constituent who wants to know, or you’ve got a group back home that wants to know. It doesn’t require all the palavering that goes on — or appears to, from our perspective in the opposition — on the other side to answer a straightforward question.

D. Bing: I just want to apologize for being late today. There was some kind of accident on the freeway there.

I think we should have some sort of limit. I don’t like the idea of unlimited time on estimates. It seems to me that if you do have a time limit, it does make people have priorities and focus on their questions. Rather than have a situation where people are expanding the number of questions to suit the time available, you do get more prioritized questions being asked — and answers.

I like the idea of having the deputy minister answer questions. Very often they are the experts in the area. Rather than huddling with the minister to provide an answer for the minister to respond, it makes sense to just have the deputy minister respond directly. I think that would be a good idea. It seems to work in other jurisdictions — Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, I see here — and I don’t see why we couldn’t have a global time limit and a maximum number of hours per ministry.

D. McRae: A general question to the members opposite, from their perspective as opposition, is…. We talk about the idea of perhaps having access to a deputy minister or an ADM. But then I wonder…. For example, a common question that occurs in estimates is: “How many FTEs are in your ministry?” Sometimes there is one particular ministry who is tasked to answer that particular question. Sometimes it’s not. But how do the members opposite feel in terms of access to general ministry information?

Not so much the political side of it. But if there was a program that you wished a briefing of, or the background behind the single-parent initiative — if you use a social program — is that information available? Because if it’s just factual information from a ministry side, I wonder: is it available to the members opposite at 12 months a
[ Page 60 ]
year, not a seven-hour or ten-hour window or period where you have either the minister or the deputy minister talking about bee pollination? I don’t know the answer to that.

Is it minister-specific? Will some ministers block access as best they can? I don’t need names. I’m just saying, in general: “Do you have access to ministry information and briefings at a senior management level to make sure that your questions could be answered 12 months a year?” I don’t know the answer to that.

I’m just throwing it to the Chair. If anybody has thoughts, please, by all means, I’d love to hear them.

J. Martin (Chair): I’ve got Eric next, but if anyone did want to respond specifically to Don.

V. Huntington: It seems to depend on the minister. It seems to depend on the quality of their political staff, on the politics of the deputies. It’s all over the map. The quality of the program briefing you get can be very limited. It can be very good. It depends on the confidence of the ministry staff within their own business of their ministry.

There’s always access. If we call…. We always have to, of course, which is so ridiculous, go through the minister’s office to get access to anything, but we can always get a briefing, usually.

G. Holman: I may not be right, but FTEs were the example that Don used. It was my understanding that they’re not reported by a ministry as a matter of course now. If I’m right there, I think it’s an example where, if they were…. That’s just one example of budget information. If it was provided as a matter of course, then you wouldn’t be asking individual ministers, and there wouldn’t be a variation depending on who the minister was or whatever — if more information was reported as a matter of course.

I thought FTEs, at some point, got dropped from reporting as a matter of course. I think that might be an example, and there might be other examples where if that information was provided, then you don’t have to waste time spent in estimates.

The comment about the limits on estimates. If there’s a fixed calendar — and I think Leonard has made the point — there is going to be a time limit on the debate, ultimately. It’s a question of: how much time do you spend on estimates versus legislation versus private members’ time and all of that? There is a global limit. So the question is: should we be spending more time on estimates or less?

My personal preference would be to spend more time on estimates. I just think (a) it tends to be less partisan, and (b) it gets down into local issues and other policy issues that…. I just find it a very productive discussion. My bias would be…. Within that global limit, which ensures that the session will come to an end and that the opposition can’t just stretch things out forever — it will come to an end — how much time do you want to spend on these various activities?

Personally, I think more time on estimates might be more productive, but I’m a little leery about saying: “Okay. It’s X number of hours.” I don’t know. That just strikes me in the wrong way.

D. McRae: If I may, just in response. The last portfolio I had was a social ministry. I thought it was bizarre that we would use more than an hour talking about individual cases that the minister cannot talk about, and the members know the minister cannot talk about it.

Because we’re dealing with individuals who are challenged with needing services, it would always be — hopefully, in my preference — that they were getting the information necessary to deal with those issues immediately and not saving them up until said estimate time. If there is a policy or, perhaps, a decision which is global and it is impacting many clients, then that, to me, is a totally good use of estimate time.

Talking about Bob Smith and his particular issues in estimates is, to me, not a place where we should or could be asking it — just like asking about the paving of a road in a small community. It’s good politics if you want to put it on a website, I suppose, and maybe that’s good enough. The reality is…. I would hope the MLA on either side is advocating for that road paving or that Bob Smith individual all the time and that the minister or ministry knows about it on a continual basis and is responding appropriately.

Anyway, I was just wondering about that. I think as ministers we often think we know what we know, but it turns out sometimes we know less in terms of how the perception is of individuals and access. I think it’s also a good example of where some ministers can do better and some ministers should be held up as being best practice.

J. Martin (Chair): Before calling for a recess, is there any other specific commentary toward the estimate portion of our conversation?

J. Tegart: As we think about the future and we look at whether we’re going to set limits or whatever, I would hope that we would allow some flexibility. I think that the ability of the House Leaders to have some discussion and to look at what’s happening in British Columbia that year — what’s controversial, what’s not controversial, etc. — provides that flexibility to come to a balance. It doesn’t matter where you sit in the House.

I’ve always been of the opinion that sometimes we, with the best of intentions, set limits that limit the future
[ Page 61 ]
and really are so strident that we limit the ability of those in the future to have any kind of flexibility whatsoever. Maybe if we can keep that in mind, hopefully our recommendations will be considered five, seven, ten years in the future, continuously. We leave the flexibility needed for everyone to feel that we’ve found the balance.

J. Martin (Chair): Let’s please take a little five-minute recess. When we return, we’ll turn the page and specifically refrain our comments to the select standing committee portion of our referral.

I’d like to continue the dialogue, with specific attention to the life of parliamentary committees, and be mindful that we were not given a particularly broad mandate within this, although we certainly have an opportunity to be somewhat thoughtful in our interpretation of that referral.

Once again, Eric, given your history as the government Whip and the impact that committees have on scheduling and members presence…. One thing that comes to mind is that having a committee carved in stone is really never going to happen. There are going to be resignations. There are going to be by-elections. There are going to be cabinet shuffles and such. Obviously, when committees are reconfigured mid-term, it’s a bit of an issue in your office, I would imagine.

E. Foster: To some degree, Chair. That’s not as big an issue as the previous discussion. But having sat on several standing committees, I think it’s an excellent idea to run them through the length of the parliament, simply for that continuity.

Now, referring back to the Finance Committee, that’s sort of a finite thing. You do your public engagement, you put your report together, and then you submit it. When you do that again next year, it’s a whole new setup, other than the fact that you hear from the same people year after year on occasion.

Otherwise, I think it’s a good idea, because there are lots of conversations that are ongoing from one session to the next. I think it’s a good idea, notwithstanding your comments that there will be some changes made. But I don’t think a whole-scale change of the committee from session to session is really all that beneficial.

Other than the fact that…. For committees that travel, it’s not a huge issue. Monday and Wednesday mornings sometimes become a bit of a challenge, because the standing committees are called on Monday and Wednesday mornings — Wednesday not so much, of course, because we don’t sit, but Monday we do have private members’ time.

So there’s a little juggling there, but that’s not an insurmountable problem — for my office, anyway. I don’t see that it is for the opposition Whip, because we’ve never had the conversation. So I don’t think it’s a big deal. Really, other than for committees to travel outside of the building, it’s always manageable.

The select standing committees — if they’re called during session time, they meet. A little bit of wiggling for people doing House duty. Other than that, if the bells ring, everybody just gets up and goes into the House.

It’s not a huge issue for me, like I say, other than travelling outside the building.

J. Tegart: I assume that if we’re looking at this as a possibility, we will alleviate the pressure that sometimes comes because the committee has not been — I don’t know what the right word is — approved to move forward with the work it’s been doing for the last six months.

J. Tegart: Yes. I would assume that if you are a committee member for the life of the parliament, that committee work would continue on through all sessions, and we would alleviate the issue of being reinstated — or whatever the appropriate word is.

Sometimes, there’s important work that is held up. Am I right in assuming that that would be part of this recommendation?

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): I’m not in a position to respond to what Jackie said, except to say that we’re not making any assumptions yet about what we’re going to recommend.

I would say this. I throw this out more for intellectual discussion — although coming from me, that may be a poor source — than anything else, and not in a partisan way. But my response is it depends on what the committee is doing.

My personal view, for instance, on the Standing Committee on Finance is that I’m not sure there is great value in having that membership be, so-called, as steady a membership as you can possibly achieve through a parliament. We like to work on the assumption that you get elected to the B.C. Legislature, and you must have some knowledge and background and experience, etc., that’s all very useful.

I have read, and I assume it’s true, that George W. Bush had never travelled outside the United States of America. I find that unimaginable, coming from the class of people he did. I suspect there are many members who are elect-
[ Page 62 ]
ed to the B.C. Legislature who haven’t been to the four corners of the province, so to speak, even in the sense of — and I don’t mean this in a critical way — the limited communities that the Select Standing Committee on Finance goes to, actually hearing from delegations like that.

I mean, my view is that everybody who’s an MLA should sit on the Standing Committee on Finance for a while, do that and have that experience and move around the province and get the education and hear about the issues. As I say to everybody, that’s one of the things about this job that is wonderful: you’re learning something every day.

Candidly, I don’t suspect every member of the Legislature reads the full range of reports that come from the standing committees. I know that comes as a great shock, and I’m sure there are only a few members who don’t. But there’s nothing like listening to somebody face to face in Burns Lake talk about something that someone from the Lower Mainland knows absolutely nothing about. I think that’s useful.

But other committees…. For instance, this committee, which might deal, if it was more active…. Again, I don’t mean that in a critical way. If it was sitting regularly and dealing with issues that were referred to it regularly by a Legislature that functioned in a different way, maybe it has merit. But I’m not convinced that the approach we take today or the recommendations we make….

I mean, do we make them on the basis that we’re thinking and believing that the Legislature is going to really expand the role of committees? Gary raised the issue this morning around private members’ bills and perhaps having them referred to a committee for discussion. Maybe it dies there, but at least there’s some sort of public discussion.

Maybe there’s a value in having that kind of committee. I think there is, but I don’t know how effective it would be if the membership is changing frequently or not changing. We all want the flexibility. I think the one thing we agree on is probably — subject to what Don has had to say from time to time — the constraints on time. Eric has responded to that to some extent — some constraints on members’ time.

I think all of us envision a somewhat more active role for individual members. I’m looking at Vicki, in particular, when I say that. I know it’s hardest on her — limited staff, representing a constituency. Nevertheless….

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): Yeah. I think it’s a good thing, but do we have to have that member sit? Depending on the nature of the committee, we may well…. There’s no reason not to have different rules for different folks, so to speak: “This committee is going to be a more permanent membership” or “This committee is going to get changed over every year, because we see it as valuable….” And I come back to the Committee on Finance.

V. Huntington: I really do see this in two parts. I think we should just go for the appointment for the life of the parliament. It’s an efficient way of dealing with the issue. There will always be flexibility within that, just because of resignations, of by-elections, of decisions to change, but that can easily be dealt with. I just think it’s a more efficient way of dealing with business. But I wonder if we can’t make an exception for something like the Finance Committee. I don’t see why there can’t be a recognition that it is a travelling committee and hard to be on for four years.

I’d ask the Clerks: how would you propose that we deal with an exception to the standing order that there be committees appointed for the life of parliament — with the exception of the Finance Committee?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I think that it could…. If it was to be included in a list of Select Standing Committees that the Finance Committee would have membership established for the life of a parliament, I presume that on a sessional basis or on a regular basis, in any event, to accommodate the various changes and interests and standing of members, there will have to be some substitutions. So it could be recognized, if we take that type of approach, that the Finance Committee is one that has been earmarked for regular review and some rotation of membership within it.

The other aspect of that committee’s work, just as a footnote, is its review of the statutory officer budget proposals. That element of its work is not as intense or as exhausting as the provincial tour that it takes on every fall. On that piece, I would actually argue that the continuity is a real benefit to the committee because the ten members of the Finance Committee build some insights and knowledge into the operations of the independent offices. Those conversations that take place, up to twice a year now with some of the offices, are really strengthened, I think, by ongoing knowledge and expertise that the members gain through that process.

It’s a heavy workload for that committee because, I think, compared to some of the other standing committees that do have less regular referrals, both of those keep the members of this committee active year-round.

I guess I would lean towards including it with the life of a parliament membership because there could be pros and cons in some instances where you do want to have some continuity on each side, perhaps, of the committee
[ Page 63 ]
room, with some ongoing membership but maybe, also, opportunities to occasionally rotate out and have some other members join the fold.

E. Foster: That leads me to where I was going. Notwithstanding the great work and many, many hours that the Committee of Selection puts into the development of these….

Leonard’s comment that everyone should have at least a go at the travel on the select standing committee — I had never really thought about that. I got to do it. I was in Port Hardy last week — the first time I’ve ever been there. It’s a great community. I enjoyed it. I don’t know how you do that balance.

To Kate’s comments about the statutory officers, having been there now for a few years, you do get a real insight into sort of their inner workings, and you have a long list of questions. What did you do with the $4 million we gave you last year? — that type of thing. I don’t know how you would balance that.

But to Leonard’s comment, I think it’s extremely important that everybody gets a crack at the Finance Committee because you get to places you might otherwise never get to see. I don’t know how you do it or what the format is. Maybe you separate some of this stuff out. I don’t know. But I think it’s an excellent point.

G. Holman: Well, I’m agreeing with many of the comments here around the Finance Committee being a bit of a different creature. I think Kate summarized the benefits of permanent committees — the continuity, the building up of expertise and knowledge. You’re going to have a more knowledgable and, therefore, hopefully, more effective committee.

But I do think Finance is a bit different for a couple of reasons, including the one that it’s just really great experience. I guess that would be the con to permanent committees: the fact that it’s good for MLAs to get a smattering of experience on different kinds of committees. It seems to me that Finance stands out as being somewhat different, so however we approach it, I think it could be specifically identified.

I still think, even for the other committees, there should be some flexibility. There will be circumstances that arise that require a changeover. But even over and above that, I think there is a broader benefit for MLAs to serve in different roles. It’s just going to make them better represent their constituents and be better parliamentarians.

Overall, I agree about the benefits of continuity, with some flexibility built in for all of the committees and, I think, with special consideration for the Finance Committee.

V. Huntington: Can I just ask a process question of members of the Finance Committee and the Clerk? Is there any reason why the entire committee has to travel all the time? Could it not be a rotation of a quorum? You might have the quorum going one week and a different quorum going the next week. Has anybody ever talked about relieving the members of this constant travel requirement? Just a question, off-point.

E. Foster: Having missed a couple of meetings here and there over the years that I’ve done it, that didn’t work very well. If a conversation comes up — to Leonard’s comment — there’s nothing like sitting across the table from somebody. The people that phone in or the people that come in on Skype — it’s not the same. I thought it would be. I really did. I thought we should be all just sitting in the Douglas Fir Room setting up the electronics and the telephone calls in, and this would work just as well and save hundreds of thousands of dollars. But it’s not the same.

E. Foster: I hear what you’re saying. But not being at a meeting — you’ve missed out on what those people have said. You have the transcript from Hansard. They do a tremendous job. It’s just not the same. For whatever reason, it just doesn’t work.

E. Foster: It’s not that it doesn’t work; it doesn’t work as well. That’s my personal….

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Just a small example. I believe in the 1990s there was a committee struck to examine the Meech Lake accord, I think it may have been, or some other constitutional reform topic, and they had a very abbreviated timeline. They had a special provision from the House in their terms of reference to enable that committee to split into two sections. So there were two separate provincial tours of the province to support information-gathering.

There are probably mechanisms by which we could construct something to allow, let’s say, a rotating quorum of members. A quorum always needs…. The majority members always need to be actively engaged in order for the committee to have an official proceeding. There are probably ways that you could arrange for travel to have a lighter impact on members’ schedules. We’ve had a little bit of experience with that.

Although it predated me, that particular exercise, I understood that there were complications because there were essentially two co-Chairs of that committee, and the committee members may have drawn different con-
[ Page 64 ]
clusions based on what they heard on the road. The impact of the face-to-face exchanges, as Eric mentioned, affected each group differently. So it’s a little bit of a different approach.

D. McRae: The concept of having more MLAs visiting other communities is great. I think the problem is the writing of the report at the end, which is the challenge where I would think various committee members may have personal preferences of what they saw as a priority. Whether it was heard by many people or heard by one or two people, if you missed the Burns Lake proposal or the Port Hardy proposal and there just happens to be an individual with an epiphany up there, you want to run with it. But if you’re not there…. The larger the group of MLAs you have to write said report, in the end, becomes…. It may be, perhaps, problematic. It’s doable, but it is tough.

The other thing is, just to attach this to some degree, that the Finance Committee also looks at the budgets of the statutory officers and their needs and such, but has there ever been thought to taking it from Finance and giving it to something like LAMC along the way, where you have the Speaker and the Legislature seeing the statutory officers? I was wondering that as we were talking around.

D. Bing: I think that establishing the select standing committees for the life of a parliament is a good idea. I see that at least the provinces and the House of Commons…. They do, do this. It seems to be a fairly accepted practice. Our issue seems to be the Finance Committee and all the travel that’s involved with that.

I was wondering if Susan could tell us what they do in Ontario as far as their Finance Committee. Are you aware of what they do there? It must be a common issue in all the provinces.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): I think the House of Commons, Ontario and B.C. are the three jurisdictions that undertake budget consultations. Ontario travels, but the committee system in Ontario is a little different in that the workload for committees is probably very similar from committee to committee, because bills are referred to committee. Any bill that’s introduced in the House is typically referred to a committee — a select standing committee, a permanent committee. Those committees would typically hold public hearings, and some of those would involve travel. So Finance Committee isn’t the only committee that would travel in Ontario.

The other difference in Ontario is that although the membership of those committees is established for the life of a parliament, they do permit substitutions — basically, mostly because when a bill is referred to a committee, the critics to that policy field will want to be able to speak to that bill and hear what the public input is and provide amendments to the bill when they do it clause by clause. They do clause by clause in a parliamentary committee, not in Committee of the Whole.

The work of those committees…. There’s no disadvantage to being on the Finance Committee, in that sense. They all have a fairly heavy travel schedule and workload, based on the number of bills that are referred to the committee. Even the Finance Committee — it will do budget consultations, but it also does bills in committee.

D. Bing: Right. But appointing a committee for the life of a parliament doesn’t preclude us from rotating members out and reappointing members and moving them.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): No, not at all. The membership can be appointed for the life of a parliament, but as I think members have mentioned, there are changes. Members resign. Members are appointed to cabinet. Different issues come up that members can no longer sit on a parliamentary committee. There is certainly a mechanism by a motion in the House to change the membership of committees, and that wouldn’t change, even if the committee was appointed for the life a parliament.

D. Bing: Right. So really, there is no disadvantage to appointing members for the life of a parliament.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): If I could, I think the only real impact we would see in British Columbia would be that the standing orders would probably be amended to not require the Special Committee of Selection to meet every session — that is, a committee that meets for about 15 minutes every session. It’s comprised of the two House Leaders. Usually, the Whips are also on that, caucus chairs. Members will get together to briefly approve a list of members that have been provided to our office from both sides.

Basically, it’s a quick motion. There’s no other discussion usually, so it’s not…. Like, in some jurisdictions, you might have what they call a liaison committee, where all the committee chairs meet to discuss what direction they’re going to take for the coming year. It’s a big, lengthy discussion involving committee budgets and all of this kind of thing.

This selection committee basically comes with two lists of members. We merge them into one. It’s adopted, it’s approved, and it’s done. I think the House Leaders have found that to be a somewhat cumbersome process. If the members were appointed to committees for the life of a parliament, there would be no requirement to deal with each and every one. Substitutions would be dealt with on an ad hoc basis as required during the session, or outside of a session by agreement with the House Leaders, as is the case now.

We could probably formalize a few of the mechanics around that, but in essence, it wouldn’t really change much else, other than those, I guess, historic or trad-
[ Page 65 ]
itional approaches to how we start up committee activity in the session.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): Kate and I were talking this morning before we started. One of the implications, possibly, of appointing committees for the life of the parliament could involve a change, an amendment to the Constitution Act.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): That’s correct. There is a provision within the Constitution Act which has always been the basis of the sessional model in British Columbia. Let’s say your committee was to recommend a change to the practice of appointing membership for the life of a parliament. That would be a change in the standing orders, but there would also likely be a change to the wording within the provincial Constitution Act — fortunately, not a federal constitutional amendment, so that’s a good thing.

The provincial Constitution Act sets out some basic provisions for our legislative institution and its work here in British Columbia. It includes some language in section 53 that suggests that the committee is only authorized to sit until the next following session. That’s always been the basis of why the standing orders then chime in with this process of striking up membership session to session. But as the good work of Jennifer Arril has indicated, across the country, we seem to be the only jurisdiction left with a sessional model where we’re recreating those lists session to session.

E. Foster: Just a procedural question. Where are we going to go with this today? We’ve had our discussion. We’re going to get a report. Do we then reconvene this committee?

There’s a need to have one more meeting to basically deal with the draft report, which will be a report to be deposited in the Clerk’s office. It will be a public document, even though the House won’t be sitting.

Our time is really running…. Kate, can you just walk us very quickly through what we have and what’s come up today?

J. Martin (Chair): You’ve got nice highlighting there that basically summates this very concisely.

In the meeting materials circulated today, Jennifer has identified a number of themes of discussion, relating to both how we handle estimates in B.C. as well as the standing committee piece. If I were to take them page by page, I’d say the plan for your next meeting is for us to continue this summary of discussion — ideas and suggestions that were brought forward today — and to strengthen out this initial summary of some of the topics that were raised on October 4.

Our plan for the meeting. It’s likely to happen, I’m thinking, around October 26 or 27. We’ve put out two dates, and I can speak to that in more detail in a moment. Our intention would be to create, for your review, a draft report summarizing everything that’s been discussed. Where we’ve heard from you a specific conclusion or direction you would like to see incorporated into that draft report for approval and/or amendment at the next meeting, we’ll be working towards that goal.

In essence, as we walk through this summary document, theme 1, which is on page 2 of the handout, is a recognition of the important role of the estimates in the Legislature, in that a lot of the strengths of the system were recognized there as a more substantive and, at times, less partisan exchange, for example, compared to question period. We talked a little bit about the focus, the scope, of debate being relatively broad and how in essence from different perspectives it seems to work, although it needs some improvement. But I wouldn’t draw, necessarily, a major conclusion from that. That would be more of a high-level introductory piece.

The next theme, on page 3, focuses on the question of timing and time limits. On that piece, we had more discussion today. I don’t think the committee has yet drawn a formal conclusion as to how to best define the time limit approach or the question of timing, but we’ll add some more summary around the way it works currently in the legislative calendar.

At the end of the session, in addition to the parliamentary calendar, if there is no agreement as to when certain estimates or bills will be concluded, there is time allocation, of course, which is a provision that’s used occasionally by government under Standing Order 81.1. But if there is any further discussion that might be required to draw us to a distinct conclusion on time limits, whether global for all estimates or individual for ministries, we would need some more direction on that.

Moving ahead to the third theme that was raised last meeting, concurrent sessions of Committee of Supply, I think it was recognized that that mechanism really provides more time to the Legislature as a whole and to members participating in estimates debate. Although it increases the efficiency, to some degree, of the estimates process, it was also recognized that by expanding the number of sections to allow more time, it unduly puts
[ Page 66 ]
pressure on both members and caucus staff and assembly staff to support additional Houses.

There was more of a recognition there that it’s a time-efficiency mechanism. I’m not sure if there are any other conclusions on that piece, but we would certainly capture that, for the next meeting, in our summary notes.

The fourth theme described in this working document is the central role of ministers. I see this as an area where we’ve had a good discussion today. Certainly, ministers are central to the estimates process, but the amount of time that they and senior officials currently invest in the process has been the topic of a good discussion.

We know that ministers are, of course, accountable both individually and collectively to the Legislature, so this is a very important part of their responsibility area. But we also recognize that the contribution of senior public servants, including deputy ministers, could perhaps be more effectively integrated into the estimates discussion.

Building on even the example — I think from Gary — today, let’s say, sometimes even a simple question of how many FTEs are in the ministry seems to take half an hour to respond to. I was thinking, perhaps, of trying to help Jennifer develop some language around preparing, let’s say, a preset template or written questions that could almost help facilitate some preliminary exchange of information from ministry officials to the opposition in advance of that conversation.

I think everyone recognizes that the time in estimates is not well spent when the minister has his back to the committee and is consulting extensively with staff.

If there’s anything we can do to facilitate the exchange of some basic information and develop something akin to what the Finance Committee uses as a template with the statutory officer budgets — just to at least get some basic facts about five-year expenditure trends and where the shifts in FTEs and program areas are, something to begin things with more basic information in hand — that might be worth exploring.

With respect to theme 5, the impact of estimates process on parliamentary committees. I think we were recognizing that there’s a heavy workload that all members — private members serving on parliamentary committees — carry as well as other responsibilities that they have. I’m not sure if the committee has drawn any significant conclusions other than a recognition of the importance of both systems being effective — the parliamentary committee system and the estimates discussion.

If there is an appetite to have the committee conclude referral of the estimates by way of standing orders that already exist to a particular parliamentary committee, that might be worth exploring as a recommendation towards better utilization of existing procedures as they currently stand.

The next theme, theme 6. We heard a lot of discussion about, again, expanding the role of deputy ministers or other senior officials to enable more technical information to be provided to the committee. There was some discussion at the last meeting about use of electronic devices that, if there are any reforms being contemplated by your committee, could have some other implications into other use of electronic devices in the House.

We can perhaps look to receive some more guidance from members on how electronic devices are incorporated into the estimates process. I think, though, that this section dovetails with making better use of the committee’s time in term of the existing resources — public servants and other written briefing materials, technical briefings — in advance. That’s where I see this theme connecting with the theme that we touched on earlier.

Which brings us to page 8 of your document: establishing committees for the life of the parliament. I think there seems to be a clear direction from the committee that you’ve drawn that conclusion. We will look at some language around, potentially, the standing orders to accomplish that change and also flagging the necessity for review of the provincial Constitution Act provisions to ensure consistency and clarity between the two sets of rules there — the standing orders and the statutory provisions.

That basically is, at a high level, what the three of us had heard at this meeting, but we would very much welcome your direction and input on any element that we haven’t already discussed today or that I captured in that high-level overview. Our intention, as I mentioned, at the next meeting is to have a draft report prepared, sent to you well in advance of that meeting, available on iPads in advance of that meeting and, hopefully, to support your conclusion of this topic at this point in time.

D. McRae: Just for clarity for myself and perhaps for the actual report, if we talk about theme 2, timing and time limits, if we remove the conversation about a specific number…. I guess my question to my colleagues here is: are we open to the idea of having a fixed time limit, with the reflection that all ministries would have time but it would be a set time, going forward, as agreed by the various House Leaders?

I hear some people in favour of it. I don’t know if other people are still not sure of that one. I don’t want to argue about whether it’s 100 hours, 150 hours or such. I think that might be one of those issues in the report that we do have some discussion about and some strong opinions, and if we leave today with a bit more clarity, it might make our conversation next time a little faster.

L. Krog (Deputy Chair): I think it’s probably appropriate to mention it in the report but perhaps reflect that there are some somewhat differing views, because I think there’s an acknowledgement from both sides that maybe this ministry is the hot potato this year and next year it’s not.
[ Page 67 ]

The other thing I will say quickly because I know we’re short of time, just with respect to the themes around committees for the life of the parliament, is to take into consideration the discussion around the Select Committee on Finance.

E. Foster: I think, on the time limit, that the time limit exists. We have a finite time to be in the building, and then, unless you want to…. If we really want to get into it, we can say each ministry has X number of hours and so on.

I don’t think that’s the answer, because one ministry is certainly not going to take as many hours as another. The House Leaders will determine how it rolls because on the last Thursday in May, we’re going to be done, so if estimates aren’t finished, we have the ability to go home the next day anyway. Everybody knows what that timeline is, going in.

I don’t think it’s as crucial, because the total number of hours is there. We start estimates on this day, and we’re going to finish them on this day. If we start to go to Don’s suggestion about a shorter time in estimates and more time at committee stage and so on, that’s a totally different discussion.

I don’t see the number of hours in estimates as being a huge issue. It’s already determined how many hours we’re going to have. We know this spring how many we’re going to have. We know in a normal spring session how many hours of estimates we’re going to have. So I really don’t see this as a huge issue. I think that the House Leaders make that determination.

The opposition determines, to some degree, how many hours we’re going to spend on each ministry. They know where they want to put their time. If you happen to be the unfortunate minister of one of those ministries that will take a lot of time…. Never having had to sit in the chair and bear the brunt of the attack, I can’t speak from that experience, but as far as time allocation goes, it’s already there.

V. Huntington: I guess my preference would have been that we consider a more fundamental change to how British Columbia approaches estimates. But if we’re not going in that direction, and if what we’re looking at is just fixing bits and pieces of it, then I would like to emphasize that somehow ensuring that deputies and senior officials can participate…. And how that happens is critical, because I think that will go a long way toward assisting us in the timed debate.

Whether we develop a tradition of technical questions on programs, etc., to deputies…. All policy, all political issues, obviously remain with ministers. Somehow, we have to enable officials to participate. That, I think, will be one of the great steps forward in looking at the time issue.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I’ll just, perhaps, provide members an update. I’ve been receiving responses back with respect to the next meeting date. We had the two options, October 26 and 27. If I’m not mistaken, it appears that more members are available on the 26th, although it’s not ideal for everyone. I recognize it’s a very busy time of year, and I appreciate the dedication that you’ve brought to these discussions. It’s been a very helpful process today.

It looks like I’ll be confirming October 26 here in Vancouver, likely the same time frame as this morning.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Okay. A little bit later that day, perhaps?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Since we have a draft report, perhaps it would be good to try for a three-hour window, if that’s not too burdensome on your schedules.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): October 26. I believe it’s a Wednesday. Our intention would be to bring you a draft report — provide it in advance — and have an opportunity to go through that report page by page, in essence, or at least focus on conclusions and recommendations.

Then, at the end of that meeting, as is the usual practice, once the report is adopted in principle by the committee as a whole, the Chair and the Deputy Chair may be delegated responsibility to finalize any minor editorial changes before its release.

E. Foster: I can do either one. The 27th is easier because we’ve got Finance the next day in Victoria. But that’s fine. We’re coming here anyway, so yes, that’s fine. I’ll just go over. Maybe I’ll play golf on the 27th.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Well, I can do another tally. I was going from my recollection of the email responses that have come in over the weekend. But
[ Page 68 ]
I will do a final number and hopefully be able to accommodate as many members as possible.

It appeared, from our initial look at different schedules for the time period in October, that those were the two best dates that week. But I’m open, if anyone wants to….

E. Foster: I’m good for either day. I put preference on the 27th simply because I have to be in Victoria on the 27th anyway. But either day is good.

J. Martin (Chair): Anything else, before we adjourn? Can I have that motion, please?

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)
Clerks:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd
	Susan Sourial

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