2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CROWN CORPORATIONS
MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CROWN CORPORATIONS Wednesday, August 29, 2001 9 a.m. Douglas Fir Committee Room Parliament Buildings, Victoria

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 
ON CROWN CORPORATIONS

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2001

Issue No. 1

ISSN 1499-4194

[ Page 1 ]

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2001

           The committee met at 9:06 a.m.

Election of Chair and Deputy Chair

           C. James: This being the first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations for the second session of the thirty-seventh parliament and there not being a Chairperson, and being Clerk to the committee, I call for nominations for the Chair.

           D. Jarvis: I nominate Ken Stewart.

           C. James: Any further nominations?

           J. Nuraney: I would second that.

           C. James: Any further nominations? There being no further nominations — Mr. Stewart, do you accept?

           K. Stewart: I will.

           C. James: In so doing, I'll put the question on the motion.

           Motion approved.

           [K. Stewart in the chair.]

           K. Stewart (Chair): As we've concluded the election of the Chair, the next order of business will be the election of the Deputy Chair. Do we have any nominations for Deputy Chair?

           P. Bell: I would nominate Bill Bennett.

           A Voice: I'll second that.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Are there further nominations? Do I hear any further nominations a second time? And for a third time, any nominations? Nominations are now closed. Can we vote on the nomination of Bill Bennett as the…?

           B. Bennett: I accept.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Do you accept, Mr. Bennett?

           B. Bennett: Yes.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Let's have a vote on that.

           Motion approved.

Terms of Reference

           K. Stewart (Chair): What I'd like to do now is…. If Mr. James would like to give us a bit of an overview with regards to the committee structure and any other information he might find pertinent to help direct us in this committee.

           C. James: Members do have a copy of the committee's terms of reference, which were passed by the House a couple of days ago. I'll just quickly read it. On August 27, 2001, the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations was appointed to review the annual reports and performance plans of British Columbia Crown corporations. In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, which were provided to this committee on opening day, the Committee is empowered to appoint one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee, to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the following next following session and during any sitting of the House, to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient, and to retain personnel as required to assist the Committee, and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be, and to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period adjournment. And upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

[0910]

           The work of this committee obviously surrounds an inquiry into British Columbia provincial Crown corporations. We have compiled a list, which is sitting in front of you. There may be a discrepancy as to one or more agencies which may or may not appear on that list, and we are trying to ensure its accuracy. However, this committee has the ability to retain personnel so that if during its inquiry, during this exercise, it finds that it requires the expertise of a consultant, it is in a position to retain one for whatever purpose and for whatever length of time.
           In order to expedite all of the work of this committee, our office becomes intimately involved with the process by way of preparing the agendas — in consultation with the committee and with the Chair, of course — and circulating those agendas to all of the members and making them publicly available hither and yon and on the Internet. I'm sure there'll be an increasing interest in the work of this committee as time goes on. Where members need to travel to Victoria, presumably they may take advantage of the remaining capital city allowance available to them in the discharge of their work here, whether it happens to be for committees or other work that they may be undertaking as well.
           Should members be interested in claiming only the actual and reasonable expenses related to the work of their parliamentary committee, they would contact us directly. We can go over those provisions for you as well. If you have any questions at all about the work of the committee — who does what — we would be more than delighted to meet with you collectively or individually and go over the administrative and procedural components that we ourselves become involved in. We try to make it as simple as possible so that all you have to do is show up. Everything else is done for you so that you're unencumbered by any administra-

[ Page 2 ]

tive or procedural details, as Dan Jarvis knows. That enables you to have all of that time during the meeting focusing on the inquiry at hand.
           My name is Craig James. I think we certainly have met before in the House and during the orientation that we had prior to the House sitting. And you know Kate Ryan-Lloyd, who is a Committee Clerk in our office. She will be my backup to this committee. She will be clerking some other committees as well, as I do too.
           Are there any questions at all at this point?

           D. Jarvis: There was a question here that we had mentioned. You talked about some additional corporations under…. Is WCB a Crown corporation? I believe it is — is it not?

           K. Stewart (Chair): If you don't mind, we'll ask Ms. Ryan-Lloyd to just touch on that topic.

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Thank you, and good morning, members. The list that we prepared and distributed this morning is a list of Crown agencies and Crown corporations which currently report to the Crown agencies secretariat. I understand that the question of the WCB and its status as a Crown corporation has come up earlier today. It's my understanding that the Workers Compensation Board is a Crown corporation, but this list reflects solely those Crown corporations and agencies which report to the Crown agencies secretariat.
           There's a link between their reporting status to the secretariat and whether or not they're in the government reporting entity under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, and whether or not they actually have a legal requirement to submit annual reports and performance plans. The WCB is not part of that government reporting entity. It is still a Crown corporation, in my understanding, and is likely to fall within the group of agencies which this committee may wish to look at.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Does that clarify it for you?

           D. Jarvis: Yes, I appreciate it.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Any other questions?

           R. Hawes: If we decide we do want to look at it, we advance that desire right here — correct?

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Yeah. Just further to that point, Mr. Hawes, this committee has been given terms of reference by the House. As is the practice in British Columbia, once a committee receives terms of reference from the House, it is up to this committee to best interpret them as it sees fit. So certainly the scope of the work before the committee can be either narrowed or broadened, as members best see fit.

           R. Hawes: Would that be done, then, through a motion right now to include WCB, to serve notice that we would also like to be looking at WCB? Would that be in order at this time?

[0915]

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Yeah, certainly members can pass a formal motion along those lines. It's probably something that might not necessarily require a formal motion. Rather, I'm sure that as we develop a business plan for this committee, there will be many discussions about how to tackle the work before the committee and how to best manage that work.

           K. Stewart (Chair): It's the opinion of the Chair at this point in time that WCB will be included in our list of Crown corporations to look at over our mandate.

           P. Bell: I'd just like to suggest that I think there's going to be some overlap between this committee and a number of other committees, and there needs to be some sensitivity and some communication between this committee and perhaps some of the other ones so that we don't do a lot of the work that we may encounter twice. That's just a suggestion. I'm not sure how to organize that the best way, but it's probably something to think through, because I know WCB is probably going to be looked at by three or four different groups. There's just no point in doing it multiple times.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I have two other speakers on the list here, but just prior to that, if I could just interject that it's my intention to meet very quickly with people from the other committees for a number of purposes. One, of course, is to help coordinate our meeting schedule, which was indicated earlier. The other issue is where the other committees are at with regards to the Crown corporations and the core review and if there are other committees that are active out there — to see if there is, as you indicated, some carryover. That's one of the things I hope to do prior to our next meeting and get that information back to you — as some of the other connections we may have with other groups or organizations. Continue on.

           B. Bennett (Deputy Chair): Same question that was asked about WCB, I would ask about ICBC.

           A Voice: It's on the list here.

           B. Bennett (Deputy Chair): Is it on the list?

           K. Stewart (Chair): Before we continue, if I just may ask one question with regard to the level of formality in these meetings. What was the tradition in the past — first name, Mr. or Ms?

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: That's right. The committee environment is generally somewhat less formal than in the House. The practice has been that members will refer to each other by first or last names here, as opposed to in the chamber, where it's always the constituency name.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I just thought I'd clarify that. If anyone is uncomfortable being called by their first

[ Page 3 ]

name, just let us know now and we'll make note of that. We'll include in this the presence of "Mr." and then when we have our other members attend, of course, we'll accommodate them also.
           Next up was John.

           J. Wilson: New names.

           K. Stewart (Chair): If you prefer to be called something other than Sir John Wilson or Mr. Wilson, just let us know, and we'll accommodate you on that.

           J. Wilson: All kidding aside here, I have a question. Are there other Crowns besides WCB that are not on the list that we know of?

           K. Stewart (Chair): To my knowledge, no. But maybe if anyone else has further knowledge on that….

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Our staff would be happy to look into that point and provide a definitive list of all Crown corporations which do not appear on this list, for the information of members.

           J. Wilson: Thank you.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Of course that's one of the first issues that I had: exactly who are Crown corporations, and what are their mandates? Just carrying on a little bit, again, what we wanted to do today was get over some of the formalities, discuss the terms of reference and get some feedback from the committee members if you have some thoughts or views as to what you would like to see accomplished during our mandate. My understanding is that the mandate of this committee is until the next session begins, and we have to report back. Whether we have a further mandate or not will be decided at that time.
           It leads us to the question of who we want to see over these next few months. One of the thoughts that has been expressed is that we may want to look at a sampling of large corporations, smaller corporations and medium-sized corporations and maybe even in different fields of mandate. These are some things that we should be giving some thought to between now and the next meeting.
           John, did you have a question?

[0920]

           J. Nuraney: My question is a question of the mandate and the scope of our mandate. What is it that we're required to do? I believe that the wording of the terms of reference says to review annual reports and performance plans. It is just simply to have these corporations report to us or send us their annual reports and performance plans which they propose for the forthcoming year. Do we have any authority to make recommendations or changes?

           K. Stewart (Chair): My understanding is that what we'll be doing in this committee is having the Chairs of various Crown corps come before us to present their three-year projections, three-year budgets and reports as to where they're at, as Crown corporations, within those plans. It's my understanding that we'll have fairly free rein to ask them whatever questions that we view are appropriate for that organization. The mandate seems to have a fairly broad spectrum with regards to the levels of questioning. The recommendations coming out of that are what we want to recommend. I think that we should have a fairly broad mandate to review those organizations.

           D. Hayer: Is it possible to get a summary of the mandate of the corporations and what they do, so that we can better understand them and ask them questions?

           K. Stewart (Chair): There is a very brief summary in the 2000 British Columbia Financial and Economic Review. It's brief, but I'll ask the Clerks if they can assist us in putting together some information. There is also the Crown agencies secretariat, and I trust that we'll be able to get some information from there. What we'll try to do is compile that and get that background information out to you as soon as possible.

           P. Bell: I'd suggest that perhaps at our next meeting we each provide a list of two, three or four Crown corps that we see as individual ones that we would like to assess. I'm sure all the members of the committee have Crown corps that are probably a bit of a pet peeve for them, and they'd like to have an opportunity to look into them further and proceed on that basis.

           K. Stewart (Chair): From my own experience in my constituency office, I know there's a couple of names that probably ring familiar to most of you, which we'd like to review early in the game. I appreciate the suggestion of getting that to us. If you can get it to us by e-mail prior to the next meeting, that would be appropriate, too, so that we can have some idea of nailing down the next agenda and also of scheduling the various corporations to come before us — who we'd like to see in that priority.

           B. Bennett (Deputy Chair): Staff must have some idea as to how long it takes to do these reviews. This has been done before, I take it. This is not a brand-new committee. Or is it?

           C. James: It's a new committee. The last time the Committee on Crown Corporations was active was in the 1980s, and it lasted for approximately, I believe, three years. Jack Kempf was Chair of the committee at the time, but it hasn't been active since then. We have had experience with Crown corporations committees elsewhere in the country, particularly in Saskatchewan.
           The length of the inquiry is, of course, dependent on the subject matter and the scope of activity of the Crown corporation in question — an obvious state-

[ Page 4 ]

ment. You may find that there are Crown corporations which are quite small in stature requiring less attention, as opposed to those Crown corporations which permeate our society and require much lengthier review.

[0925]

           I thought that what would be helpful is if the committee, over the course of the next week or two, would be able to gauge some idea as to which Crown corporations they would be interested in examining. We could map out a schedule which would incorporate a business plan and set aside how much time members felt that they may like to attend to B.C. Hydro, for instance, or B.C. Ferries or whatever Crown corporation. Then we could map that out, advise them accordingly, give them plenty of warning and, incorporating that into the committee's business plan, get a better idea of how long the whole exercise is going to take.

           B. Bennett (Deputy Chair): Ken, can I ask a supplemental to that? I was going someplace in particular. I would suggest that we should have an opportunity to discuss the list that we decide upon at least in this first period of time between now and the next sitting. I've already gone through the list and checked off some that I'm interested in, but if we're here together and are able to discuss all those Crown corporations like, for example, B.C. Hydro…. All of these organizations are going to be subjected, I think, to a core review. We may be interested in them, but we may find, after we discuss it, that we could get better use out of our time by looking at something that somebody else is not already looking at. I think that is where Pat was coming from a while ago.

           K. Stewart (Chair): My anticipation, again, is that we'll contact the other committees that are going on and get some of that feedback from them. Again, it's my hope that when we make our recommendations to the Legislature, we have a mandate to continue on so that we don't have to try and do every Crown corporation in the next four months. That's why I suggested that we maybe either look at a sampling from large, small or medium or just target in on ones that we have that seem to be of more interest to the committee to get to first.
           What I again would suggest is that if you can e-mail your recommendations to myself or the Clerk, we'll try and coordinate that and see if we can get some kind of consensus that way as to who the number one favourite corporation up should be.

           R. Hawes: I'm going to go a little bit along the lines of what's already been said. First and foremost, corporations like B.C. Hydro are under a microscope all over the place, and I just don't see us sitting here trying to pick that apart. But there's a whole bunch on here, further to what Dave was talking about…. Like, there's some numbered corporations on here. Who knows what they are? I would like to know not just what they do but why they are Crown corporations. And are they? I think the core review was looking at agencies, boards and commissions, not necessarily Crown corporations. I'd like to know if all of these are under review by the core review committee. I think any that aren't are the ones we ought to be looking at, especially the smaller ones. There are some here that I think maybe we ought to be asking: why are they Crown corporations?

           K. Stewart (Chair): I think that all your questions are valid. Just to answer one, with regards to where…. I will be meeting later today with regards to the core review and will see where they're at with the Crown corporations. Craig James has suggested that we maybe get a briefing from the Crown agencies secretariat early in the go, and they can maybe help us identify the corporations that we want to see and just give us a brief overview to that. So we'll look into that. If we're going to do it, we should do it definitely at our next meeting.
           You talked about B.C. Hydro. With regards to B.C. Hydro, what we're asking for minimally here is for them to present their annual reports and performance plans. We may be very satisfied with a short presentation from B.C. Hydro, whereas with some other organizations we may want to look a little further into questions that we may have or that haven't been answered by their initial presentation. I believe we have some flexibility there as to the depth of questioning that we want to go into, based on the concerns of the committee.

[0930]

           B. Bennett (Deputy Chair): I think that at least initially, my first response to who we would investigate…. I would personally prefer not to hear from an organization that is large and complex if I don't feel that as a committee we're going to be able to do it justice. I would rather not have it seen that we have given something our seal of approval unless we've really taken the time to dig into it. So if there's any way to avoid those kinds of Crown corporations, if the group decides to do that — if we really don't have the time and we think that it's going to be reviewed under other processes — maybe we ought to just leave it alone.

           K. Stewart (Chair): That's certainly a thought, Bill.

           P. Bell: Perhaps Mr. James can expand on this thought a bit. Core review is really intended to look at, in many cases…. We're at a very high level and looking at it from the perspective of: should we or should we not be in this particular business or operation or segment of the business? I see this committee as reviewing, as I understand it by our terms of reference, business plans and financial statements from the previous year. So it really is, I think, perhaps a bit different tack in terms of how we're looking at the Crown corps.
           We're asking them, first of all, "What happened last year with your financial statements?" and holding them accountable for their performance for last year, as opposed to perhaps questioning whether or not we should be in that particular field of business and then

[ Page 5 ]

reviewing their business plan to see if that matches with the priorities of this government for the coming year — or the coming three years, if it's a three-year business plan.
           Perhaps I'm almost contradicting what I said earlier. Maybe there isn't a conflict between this committee and core review, in the sense that core review is looking at a much higher level than we are. We're looking at the day-to-day operations of the business.
           Mr. James, your thoughts on that?

           C. James: Yes. Well, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the core review and the exercise that's unfolding before it. But certainly what you've said about the Crown corporations dealing with their strategic plans over the course of the next one, two, three or four years on the basis of what's happened in the past and reviewing either the financial statements…at that level would be very appropriate and, I think, would not duplicate the work of anything else that's going on.

           P. Bell: So perhaps we're operating at a different level, and there really isn't a conflict there. I'm not sure.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Just a quick comment. I trust and hope that after we have an opportunity to meet with the first one or two Crown corps, we'll have a better idea of where we want to go with that. We can just start with the very basic of looking at their annual report and listening to their performance plan. Then we can see where we want to go with each individual organization after that.

           D. Jarvis: A further remark to what the rest have been saying. It's really a very awesome task in front of us, if we're going to look at the business plans of all these corporations. What comes to mind is Forest Renewal B.C.. Mr. James will concur that I sat on that committee — for what? — three to four years, and I think we only went through one or two years of business plans. You know, it can go on for a considerable amount of time, and when you look at the whole list here, it is an awesome task that's before us.
           There are outfits like the B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund Ltd. Actually, to be quite honest, I've never heard of it before. Why is it even there? I'm just wondering if…. Some of these are highly politically charged things that are going to come before us in the next little while. B.C. Ferries has already been charged by the Premier for a review as of last night. I'm not too sure of what the terms of reference are with regards to ICBC. I know that they've put in a new CEO or Chairman of the board to review it. What's the extent of that review? We don't know. Why are we going to waste our time looking at ICBC's…?
           As I say, I'm not too sure how we should approach all this. It is unbelievable. I can appreciate that Mr. Bennett would want to look at something like the Columbia Basin Trust and places like that, which probably are closer to home for him. I'll leave it at that, but I'm open to whatever you want to do. I'm just saying that if you're going to ask to look at all of these business plans and expect to do anything in this first year, we'll probably be here every day of the week.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Mr. James has some comments, and then I'll follow up with a….

[0935]

           C. James: The matter of duplication is certainly a valid point. Just so members are aware, now that the issue of B.C. Ferries has been raised…. The members of this committee may not be aware that the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts receives reports of the auditor general as they are published and tabled throughout the course of the year. Some of those reports deal with Crown corporations.
           In the current terms of reference for the Public Accounts Committee, a report that was made public last year regarding the fast ferries is before that committee. If this committee decides to review B.C. Ferries, they may want to be cognizant of the fact that the Public Accounts Committee may be reviewing a component of that business while at the same time, if there is another inquiry dealing with either fast ferries or B.C. Ferries, ensuring that all are sensitive to the others' mandates.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Just further to that, I don't believe we're under any obligation to review all, or review in depth, the organizations that are presented under this list in the next four months. It's my belief that what we should do among ourselves and through this committee is decide where we want to expend the energies and on what organizations, and that overview from the secretariat would probably be a good start.

           D. Jarvis: I agree with you there. I'm not sure who's in charge of the core review, but could you contact that individual and see to what extent they are reviewing and whether we would be interfering with that review or whether they would recommend that we look at some of those? At the time that you're meeting with the other Chairs, find out from those Chairs…. Supply them with a copy of the Crown corps and find out if any of them are in the process of or are going to be reviewing it as well. Then we'll have a better idea as to how we should approach it.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I appreciate those comments. I have a meeting today from three to four to look into the issues surrounding the core review. Secondly, that will lead into something that was talked about previously, which was to try and coordinate our meetings. Before we conclude today, that's something I'd just like to touch on. I do have a few more speakers here.

           P. Bell: First of all, I think that core review is looking at a much different level than this committee will be charged with. Second of all, core review is not a legislative committee. I'm not sure exactly how it's structured, but I believe that we as a legislative committee are obviously…. Our records are open, and everything is being documented by Hansard and so on. I

[ Page 6 ]

think we probably have a role to play in that, regardless.
           The second thing I was going to suggest is that perhaps we consider using the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation as a starting point. I don't believe that's being reviewed anywhere else, and it might be just something as a starting point. I mean, it's a very large corporation with a lot of assets. I'm sure it would be one that probably all of us have to deal with on an ongoing basis. Maybe there's an opportunity to start with something there, see how it flows and then make a longer-term decision in terms of where this committee goes with its terms of reference.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Again, it would be my belief that over the next few days or within the next week, the members would get back to me or to the Clerk with regard to the areas you view as important and the agencies you would like to see up early. If there are specific issues with regard to them, you might even want to highlight them to be included in the review.

           D. Hayer: I feel that on this Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporation, just because we don't have expertise, that doesn't mean we should say we're not going to touch the corporations. Some of those corporations might be saying: "Okay, they don't have expertise, so let's not worry about it." I think that if we need expertise, we should be able to get that expertise, to ask proper questions and get information.

[0940]

           We should not duplicate, but at the same time, if there are some concerns or issues raised, we should be able to bring them to this committee, the available access to all these Crown corporations. I want to make sure that nobody from any other Crown corporations thinks they are exempt, either because we don't have expertise on this committee or because they were touched by something else. If there was something missing from another review, then we should be able to go back and take a look at it.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Again, that just brings up the other comment that we're not in a position to direct; we're just in a position to listen and recommend back to the Legislature. That's my understanding. It's not as if we're in a position to be telling a Crown corporation what to do. But we certainly are in a position, if we have areas of concerns or interests, to express those back to the Legislature. That would be our role.

           I. Chong: Sorry I was late. I was at another meeting.
           Firstly, just for clarification, the annual reports that we will be reviewing in this post-session will be those annual reports ending 2001 or prior — any late reports. So we're looking at all the financial results, essentially, of operations, of things that have gone on in the past, which would be very difficult for us to make recommendations on. But what we would be looking at are performance plans which, hopefully, would be future-related — either three-year or five-year plans or, in some cases, maybe just annual plans. First of all, I wanted to confirm that's what this committee would be doing.
           In relation to what Dan Jarvis has said about core review and what Pat…. I guess I'm coming from the same…. I guess the concern is that to make our work in this committee effective, we look at those Crown corporations, agencies, which we know will require us to provide recommendations to the Legislature. If the core review is far enough along and has determined that certain agencies or boards or commissions will not be in the same makeup, shall we say, as we know it…. I don't know if there's value in spending as much time in this committee. For priority purposes, I'm wondering if that would give you some direction as to scheduling the meetings.
           I guess the third component is regarding the calling of witnesses to this meeting. At every meeting, are we going to review the annual reports and performance plans and request the board directors, CEOs or Chairmen of the boards to attend those? Or would we sometimes have meetings exclusive of them being in attendance? Are we looking at internal staff or what? I just put that on the table to allow you to sort of look at scheduling and the cost involved of bringing people over from Vancouver or from wherever they may be.

           K. Stewart (Chair): A few points, if I may. The first one is that we'll also be looking at their budget forecasts down the road so that we can have some anticipation as to where they perceive the revenues are going to go. The second: with regard to who will be presenting the information before us, I believe it's our prerogative as to whether we want to have the Chairman, whether we want to request more or whether we just want to review the annual report. In some cases we may want to just do that.
           Again, I think it'll be up to the committee as to how we do that. We may want to have a second meeting. There might be some agencies that come before us and just open a lot more questions that we may want to further explore, which can't be concluded at that time. It's my understanding that we will have some flexibility with regards to that.

           I. Chong: Just a follow-up. Can I get confirmation, then…? When we call on witnesses to present before us, those costs are not borne by this committee. Just for clarification, so that we know what our budgetary limitations are….

           K. Stewart (Chair): I'll defer that question, if I may.

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: As was mentioned earlier, the Clerk's office will be preparing a business plan for this committee. We can include any estimates in there to cover witnesses' expenses. Whether or not those expenses are to be paid is a committee decision. However the committee wishes to proceed on that point, we can incorporate that into the plan.

           I. Chong: Thank you.

[ Page 7 ]

[0945]

           R. Hawes: A couple of things. I'd like to recommend that we don't submit a list yet, but first get our own list of what these corporations are and what they represent. And then I would like to see us sit down and discuss that list before we begin to prioritize. I wouldn't even think of submitting something to you, because I don't know who half of these are and what their mandates are.
           Secondly, I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that this is taxpayers' money. As Ida said, bringing people here can be very expensive. This committee has not met for ten years or longer, and I really don't see this as being an inquisitor-type deal that's going to save the world. I think it's more just to review what the financial plans are, and that doesn't necessarily mean that somebody's got to travel and that we're going to have all kinds of inquisitions.
           A lot of these financial statements are available on websites, and we can get a lot of the information before anybody even submits anything to us. We can already know quite a bit, especially if we can get a list of who these companies are. So I would suggest that this is a very preliminary meeting. Let's get a list of what we're really looking at, so we understand who some of these companies are, and then have a further meeting — just us — to discuss where we want to go. I just can't see us trying now, before we meet again, to set up what companies and who we're going to look at and whether we'll have witnesses there. That's very premature.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I would concur. I don't think that at our next meeting we want to be jumping into a process of having a Crown corporation presenter before us. I don't know if the…

           R. Hawes: If I might, though…. My understanding of what you were asking for was for us to submit a list of our priorities now so that we could begin the process of saying: "Here's who we want to look at first." I think that's really premature. I think we have to come back together and have a discussion once we know who all of these companies are.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Following on that, Randy, it would be my suggestion that the first thing we do…. If we can get the secretariat to come in here and get out as much information as we can to you with regards to the Crown corporations prior to the next meeting or even where we can look it up on the website — I don't believe there's anyone in this room who isn't familiar with how to get onto the websites to get that information….
           Secondly, I agree with you that we need to have some idea as to who we want to see and how we want to prioritize that before we start inviting people. But I wouldn't stop people if they had some suggestions about who they would really like to see early on, because we might have to schedule these people down the road a bit. Just because we might want to see a group or a Chair of an organization in two weeks, that may not be in their scheduling either. So it would be my expectation that we would meet before we prioritize and fix that list.
           I would suggest that the bulk of our next meeting would be trying to decide who and when we want to meet. At that point, after some of the meetings with those associated with the core, we may have more input as to where we should funnel that meeting schedule too, as far as who's going to attend it and make the presentations.

           R. Hawes: Just as a supplementary, and maybe you could answer this question for me. I know Pat said we're operating on a different level, but I'm not so sure that our mandate isn't broad enough to operate on all levels. So I would have thought that if we saw somebody in here that probably would be better off not being a Crown corporation and being in private enterprise somewhere, that's the kind of recommendation that could come out of this committee, I would assume — which means that, really, we are dovetailing with what's being done elsewhere.

           K. Stewart (Chair): At this point I wouldn't want to prejudge what our recommendations to the Legislature would be, other than to say that I would like to leave them as broad as we possibly can and that where the work of this committee takes us is where it takes us. That will be directed by the members of this committee within the broad mandate, and I interpret in a broad way what the terms of reference are. I'm just looking for a nod. Is that a type of consensus that I can see from this group?

           A Voice: Not really.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Okay. So moving on to John Wilson. You're next on the speakers list anyway.

[0950]

           J. Wilson: If we took these terms of reference and gave each one an hour to present to us, we would be lucky to cover them all by the time the next sitting comes along. There are almost 60 on this list. That time frame is impossible to deal with. So either we change the terms of reference — which I don't know if we can do or not, because that's the reason the committee was struck — or else we make the decision to bring the secretariat in, go through the mandate and terms of reference of each corporation, and then decide that we are going to pick a select few to deal with.
           At this point, if we go with our terms of reference as set down by the Legislature, basically we're here to listen to their reports. Then we can write our own report at the end as to whether we think the Crown corporation is doing the job it set out to do in its mandate or whether it isn't. I think we have to take a good look at them and then decide whether we're going to follow these or whether we can change them in a way that will allow us to do a much more thorough job on a smaller number.

[ Page 8 ]

           K. Stewart (Chair): I'm just going to suggest that the terms of reference laid out by the Legislature will not change unless…. I don't think they're going to have a sitting to change our terms of reference between now and when we're supposed to come back. So we do have to follow within these terms of reference.
           I'll again look to the Clerk for some support in this one, but I don't read into this that it says that we have to review every Crown corporation in here. It's my understanding — or the direction that I'd like to give this committee unless I hear otherwise — that we decide, given the limited time we have available to us, who we want to hear from. As indicated by Randy earlier, for some of these, just the fact that we plunk the report down on the table here and have a look at it could be a review.
           It would be my suggestion to this committee that we look at who we really want to hear from and the types of questions that we really want to ask that organization, and that's where we focus.

           J. Wilson: If I might respond, the first line puts the terms of reference in plural: "corporations." We could start out with something like WCB, and we could be here for a year on it, to do a thorough job. I think there is something in there that tells us that we have to deal with whatever volume we can in our time frame. We can pick and choose — yes, perhaps we can, because we recognize that we can't do it all between now and next year.

           K. Stewart (Chair): What I'd suggest, because we're talking a little bit of wordsmithing from the terms of reference, is that we try and get that clarified before the next meeting. It would be my anticipation that we're not compelled to see every Crown corporation, but I'll try and get that clarified.

           J. Nuraney: I would like to speak in the same vein as Randy did. Because of the time constraints that we have, it's not physically possible for us to review all the Crown corporations on this list. At the same time, in order for us to prioritize, we have to familiarize ourselves with what these Crown corporations are. So if I may suggest, Mr. Chairman, a letter can be written to each one of them to ask them to send us their annual report and their performance plans so that we will then have an opportunity to review them ourselves and then sit and prioritize as to which ones we want to look into.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I'm advised that that's a reasonable request and something we should be able to accommodate.

[0955]

           A. Hamilton: I'd echo the same as Randy and John. However, I don't believe that we would have the time to go through every single report from every agency here and be able to do our own work. I think that we should just have a small brief about what each of these agencies does, because as was said previously, we don't know what a lot of them are. I just think that to get — I don't know how many are on here — 60 annual reports and financial statements would be an ultimate task. If we're going to do that, we might as well be going into all of them, because that's the amount of work we're going to be doing in reading them.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Again, I think we do have a mandate here, and we should be aware of who the Crown corporations are and the depth we want to delve into the individual ones. We'll make that material available to you, and then we'll look to the committee as to prioritizing who we're going to see.
           The other comment is that even though we do have a time term here until the next sitting, there is a possibility that the recommendation to the House will be that we continue with this committee. I'm sure that if the work we do over the months available to us is viewed to be valuable, then there will be support to allow this to continue. I certainly don't anticipate that we could, in any way, do a decent job of reviewing all the Crowns within this time frame. To me that seems to be a task that would be a little beyond us at this point in time.
           I'm hearing a little bit of consensus here as to where we should be going.

           I. Chong: I just want to perhaps ease some of the concern I'm hearing from the members. Select standing committees are different from caucus committees, etc., and our terms of reference are quite clear. It's correct; we're not required to do all 60 Crowns in one year. When I was on Public Accounts, sometimes we had half the reports still sitting there at the end of the session. You just don't get through them all, and that's what happens.
           I'm leery of the Chair sending a letter out to every Crown corporation asking them for their financial reports and their business plans and of us trying to look at all 60 of them, when we know we may only do 20 of them. I would much prefer — and I don't know if the Clerk's office can assist in this way — to have perhaps a four- or five-page briefing, very quickly, with a listing on each page of what the mandate is of each Crown or agency or commission that was set up. For example, the Provincial Capital Commission is only set up to deal with the provincial capital. It's very clear. They have an act, and they have a financial statement. They have a service plan. Even something like that, so everybody knows this is what they do….
           I would like to recommend or suggest and get the support of the committee here that the Deputy Chair and Chair get together to pull out those that they think are — I wouldn't say more urgent — more pressing for this committee to review, to make sure that we do review perhaps a dozen before we report out, so that it's shown that this committee hasn't met for ten years. That's why it's important that we take a look at those. If the Chair and the Deputy Chair would like to speak to a House Leader or others, just to determine which dozen or so are really pressing, we should have a look at those for sure. Then if each of us as a committee

[ Page 9 ]

member submits two that we would like to see fit into the plan, perhaps we can accommodate the scheduling of these Crowns.
           I just would encourage the Chair and Deputy Chair to offer some guidance in this way so that we don't keep coming back to meetings trying to figure out what we're going to do until the next meeting. Legislative committees have to move fairly quickly. There's a lot of work ahead of us. Legislative committees, as I understand them when we're out of session, can schedule an all-day committee where we go from ten in the morning till as late as four at night. We can get three reports done.
           I realize there's some travelling involved, but I'm just mindful of the fact that people are looking at this committee with some sense that we will be looking at those Crowns which, I think, have been more concerned. Things like WCB, I realize, will take more time. We may have to just give that one full day on its own. Again, I would defer to the Chair and Deputy Chair to help identify the priorities rather than each of us trying to do so.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I'm just going to refer to Kate as to what she believes they can do for us with regards to getting a summary of information of the past.

[1000]

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: As was discussed earlier today, I've made a note here of certain requests by the committee which we intend to provide to you before the next meeting. That would include a complete list of all Crown corporations, including those which are not part of the formal government reporting entities — those such as the WCB — which do not appear on this list.
           We are also going to prepare a brief summary of the mandates of each Crown corporation, the complete list including those not in the government reporting entity, and we are prepared, if it is the will of the committee, to send correspondence to them. I'm not sure if there is consensus on that point, but certainly that may be an opportunity for the committee to inform the Crowns formally of this new process.
           We can, if you wish, request a single copy of those reports to be stored in the Clerk's office just for reference purposes, and we would have it available if the committee wished to pursue it. I am certainly open to support the committee in any other way it sees fit.

           K. Stewart (Chair): That's just a request. I don't think we need to vote on that, procedurally.

           I. Chong: Just as a follow-up to that, Kate, if you can ensure that those Crowns — which have a legislation that follows them, like an act…. Would you identify that act if you're doing a summary?

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Yes. That's exactly right, so the statutory authority for each and every Crown corporation will also be indicated. If I can just clarify my understanding of the committee's intention, then. The summary of corporation mandates that we'll be providing will be extremely brief, just to give sort of a topical overview for comparative purposes. At the present time, certainly the mandates will be quite a complex issue in some cases. But for the purposes of the next meeting, we'll give you just a very simplified version of that. Is that the understanding?

           I. Chong: Yes, because if you have the statutory authority, we can easily pull that up and check the act to find out what their mandate is. That's all I was trying to do. I mean, I don't think it's fruitful to have all that paperwork that's required of you, and all of us don't need all that extra paperwork. So if that's included, I think that would help all of us.

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Yes, I'll ensure that that's done.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Now, I have a speakers list here of Randy, Dan, Bill and John Wilson. Any other speakers at this time? I will just continue on.

           R. Hawes: I don't disagree with what Ida is saying, but I don't…. If you're writing to these corporations anyway, and they publish their financial statements, I don't see that there's a big deal in having them provide the statements.
           That doesn't mean we're going to review them. Individual members can look at whichever ones they choose to look at, and they may be satisfied with a look at them themselves and not bring anything back here. But certainly, in order to be more informed on what these corporations do and what their plans are, having that information available can be handy for many of us.
           I don't see that it will take any of the committee's time. It's up to the individual member. If he's got all of those financial statements…. I mean, maybe some don't want them, but some do. I would not mind having a set of financial statements from each of these, and I'll pick the ones that I personally want to look at. I can look at them on my own and decide whether I have questions or no questions or whatever.

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: I'm happy to offer — if for the sake of members' convenience, you wish us to keep these in our office next door — a complete set of these reports. Of course, they would also be available on the Web in many cases, if that's more convenient for you. If it's for the committee to correspond with the corporations, we'd be happy to keep master copies of these on file for future reference.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I don't think the expectation or the burden on a Crown corporation to send out the information they have…. It's all there, prepared. It's not like we're asking them to do much other than pull something off the shelf and throw it in the mail for us, so I don't perceive that as a big burden. I'll again leave that to Kate.

           D. Jarvis: I want to clarify that in that summary review that you're going to produce, you will include

[ Page 10 ]

those inquiries you have made with the other Chairs with regard to the select standing committees and the caucus committees as to what Crown corporations are under their review.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Whatever information I manage to gain over the next week and working with the vice-Chair, we will get that to you through the most convenient method. Again, dealing with the Clerk's office, we'll get that information to you.

[1005]

           It's my anticipation that what we'd like to do is have a basic understanding of what the Crown corps are, who they are and what they do, and the individual members can go into as much depth with it as they want. Once we have that very basic understanding, then we can decide who we want to target over the time available to us. That's what I view will be the focus of the next meeting: where do we want to go with the organizations that we choose to look at?
           I believe that's a reasonable way to go, but first we've got to know who they are and very basically what they do. We can also reflect our own individual concerns and constituencies as to where the area of interest lies, and we'll prioritize those.

           B. Bennett (Deputy Chair): You took the words right out of my mouth, Mr. Chair

           K. Stewart (Chair): That's why you're my vice-Chair.

           B. Bennett (Deputy Chair): I think there is a consensus, and I would like to add some weight to the necessity of making sure that we know who else is looking at these 60 Crown corporations. In my view, that should be an important component in our decision as to which ones we want to look at, in addition to having the general summary of each of them to get an idea as to their mandates. If we're interested and the group wants to look at them, that's fine. Even if there is some interest in a particular Crown corporation, if it's already being reviewing to death, it just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for us to look at it.
           The other thing I wanted to say relates to our terms of reference. My reading of the terms of reference would indicate that we can sit during any sitting of the House and that we shall report to the House, though it does say as soon as possible or following any adjournment or at the next following session as the case may be. Essentially, I think this committee is set up for four years, and we can report as soon as possible…. I suppose we should establish a time when we'll report on whatever Crown corporations we've managed to review at that point, and we'll just continue on incrementally throughout the four years.

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Just a point of clarification. I think that the terms of reference as they're typically scripted for legislative committees, in the phrase that Mr. Bennett just read into the record, "shall report to the House as soon as possible" — i.e., before…. The terms of reference were passed when the House was still sitting, so arguably they could immediately report following any adjournment, which would be the period of adjournment we're currently in, or at the next following session. If the committee has undertaken work in the present session and has not been able to provide a formal report to the House in the present session, it may do so at the third session. But at that point it would not necessarily have a list of members yet approved by the House or a re-referral of the terms of reference.

           B. Bennett (Deputy Chair): So essentially we're only set up until the next session.

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Exactly. All parliamentary committees are created for the session only. When the current session, the second session, is prorogued, which typically happens in a morning session just before the throne speech and the opening of a new session, then at that point the committee in actual fact ceases to exist. It may still submit its report, if it has been prepared in this session, in the new session.

           K. Stewart (Chair): That's pretty much consistent with the direction I had. Not to say that there may not be an expectation that this committee will be continued on, but I think that what we have to do is focus on the ones that we want to focus on, given the time that we have.

           J. Wilson: When you do a review, it's sort of like the estimates process. You bring the people in and ask them all of the questions you need to find out exactly what goes on in there, because when they present their financial statements, it really doesn't tell you a lot as to how the money is spent and where it's going to go. You end up doing a mini-estimates process on that particular Crown corporation.
           Just to give you a bit of an example as to how these things go, Forest Renewal was one that I sat on for a couple of years. In one year we were lucky to get through it to find out how that money was being spent, where it was going, whether or not it was being spent wisely and whether or not there was a need for it. They get pretty involved once you start doing them, in order to make an informed decision. Otherwise you just take the broad-brush approach, "Oh yeah, it looks good, so it should be all right," without actually knowing what's happening.

[1010]

           I hate to be a devil's advocate, but we are limited. If we worked every day, eight hours a day five days a week, we might cover off two of the big ones between now and February. That's the reality of it.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I guess, just back to realities, we do have terms of reference here. We've been struck by the Legislature to try and undertake a task. That's what we'll try and do, and we'll do the best we can. I believe that the basis of starting is to familiarize ourselves with the agencies involved. That's what I would trust we'll endeavour to do between now and the next meeting.

[ Page 11 ]

Then, at the next meeting, we will look to focus our workload based on the knowledge we've gained between now and then.

           J. Nuraney: One of the main thrusts of our New Era document was accountability. The reason I first mentioned that we should ask for a performance plan from each of these Crown corporations is that for the past 20 years, nobody has asked them. I think it is important, just psychologically speaking, for these Crown corporations to submit to us what their performance plans are for us to review at our discretion and pleasure. If we feel that there are some corporations which are not performing or have no plans because they've been dormant for the past several years, maybe those are the ones that we should look closely at, if the core review has not already seen it.
           I would strongly recommend that the letter should go out to each one of those corporations. The annual reports are perhaps readily available, but I think the performance plans are an important factor in our review.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Again, I don't know if the terminology is totally correct here, but my view is that Crown corporations are agencies of the Crown, agencies of the people, and that we're the organization and the committee that's charged with making those agencies accountable to the people. I don't believe that's been held that tightly, at least in the previous ten years and probably prior — since the last meeting. So it's my belief that we certainly do have an accountability to the people and that we'll just do the best we can with the time frame we have and the information that we've gained, knowing that what we're trying to do is make the agencies accountable to the Legislature.

Meeting Schedule

           K. Stewart (Chair): Given that and moving on, the next order of business, if there's no more discussion on that, is with regard to the meeting schedule. Again, what we'd like to do is try and coordinate the meetings with the other meeting schedules, which is going to be difficult because many of you are on different committees, and you're not all on the same committees. But we do have other responsibilities in Victoria with caucus, etc. It's my anticipation that a meeting schedule of approximately every two weeks may be in order to get the business done. Again, I will look to recommendations from people that have been involved in other legislative committees, which I have not, for some thoughts as regards occurrences of meetings and the times of meetings.
           Maybe the first person I could ask that of is Kate. You've probably had more experience with these types of committees than the rest of us. Maybe that's not so; I don't know. Some of the other members that have been around here for a while…. I look at one particular member and then the second member and the third member. If you can just give us some idea if you have any thoughts as to the regularity or the times that this committee may need to meet in order to meet our mandate.

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Certainly, there'll be further information available to the committee to make this decision once the scope of the inquiry is more defined. I should say that in practice, committees of this kind, which have sort of an oversight role to government…. I'm thinking particularly of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which has been active in British Columbia for some time. It has often worked to meet at least once every two weeks and, at that opportunity, scheduled the better portion of a day to deal with the business before it.

[1015]

           Certainly, I understand that the Chair is going to be meeting with the Chair of other committees to best determine what members' availability is going to be this fall. I understand that a number of you are going to be active working on other committees which will have a heavy travel schedule this fall, so availability may revolve around those types of scheduling issues.
           I think that the committee will be able to get a good handle and get a lot of work accomplished if we can commit to meeting, for instance, every second Thursday and schedule, for example, from ten to three or nine to four, or whatever best suits members. Certainly we're able to assist in any way in terms of checking with schedules and stuff like that, but if we can actually identify a regular meeting day for this committee, I'm sure that will be quite helpful for everyone.

           K. Stewart (Chair): Just quickly, my thoughts, given the travel, were more Tuesdays and Wednesdays, to allow people the Thursday to travel back from upcountry and then Friday back in their…. So those were the days I was thinking of: Tuesday, Wednesday. Is there any consensus with regard to that?

           A Voice: Monday, Tuesday.

           A Voice: Earlier in the week.

           D. Jarvis: How does that work — Monday — for the people across the time zone?

           K. Stewart (Chair): So we're looking at sort of mid-week. Tuesday or Wednesday works better.

           R. Hawes: Caucus committees are generally on Monday, so many of us come Monday. If we're meeting on Tuesday, we can go home Wednesday.

           K. Stewart (Chair): What I'm looking for is a consensus. We want to work around the other committees, of course. But if we look to the middle of the week, if we do have caucus on the Monday — if that's the case — then of course we'll try and squeeze to that end of the week, as compared to the other.

           D. Hayer: I think that if you can schedule on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, it would be better. The other

[ Page 12 ]

part is: what is the quorum for this thing? You might not get everybody here, but that doesn't mean the meeting should stop. You will never get 100 percent of the members here. As long as you have more than a majority, you should be able to hold the meetings.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I was just told that it's majority. Again, it's important, if you're unable to attend the meeting, to let us know with as much notice as you can. And we'll try and give you as much notice as we can with regards to the meetings.
           Hopefully, if we look to meet within two weeks of today, at that meeting we should have a better idea of where the Crown corporations are at, what we'd like to do with this meeting and when we should meet. If you want to leave me with that information when I meet with the other Chairs to try and focus our meeting schedule around that…. So we're looking at meetings every two weeks and trying to schedule them mid-week.

           D. Jarvis: I assume that majority is including the Chair.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I'll look for definition from the Clerk on that.

           B. Bennett (Deputy Chair): I'm certainly in sync with the discussion here about when we have our meetings and so forth. The only suggestion or comment would be that the first meeting, where it's proposed, I think, that we discuss selecting a number of these Crown corporations or a couple of these Crown corporations that we review…. If we wait two weeks to do that and we then choose a few, then it's basically, as I understand it, up to staff to contact those Crown agencies and corporations and start to book appointments and all that sort of thing.
           I wonder: should we consider meeting next week to do that so that we have a bit more time to get to the Crown corporations? Or is there a consensus here that you want the Chair and the vice-Chair to work on that? Or do you want to have an open meeting to discuss selecting the Crown corporations?

           K. Stewart (Chair): I'll look to the committee for a response to that.

           I. Chong: Mr. Chair, as I indicated earlier, I would recommend, so that we can get moving quickly, that the Deputy Chair and yourself perhaps identify those you think we should look at fairly quickly. If we do wait for another meeting to schedule other meetings, it's going to be a month before we actually start working on these. Given the time frame to report out for the next session, if we so choose, it narrows our abilities.

[1020]

           I'm prepared to suggest that the Chair and Deputy Chair at least identify perhaps three or four. That would get us going within two weeks to start looking at that and would give staff a chance to get that out to us. I'm not saying that the recommendation to contact all the other Crown corporations still wouldn't be carried on, but my concern is that a subsequent meeting to schedule other meetings is just not very productive or efficient for this committee. I would concur with the Deputy Chair that we move in that direction.

           J. Wilson: I think we should sit back, gather the information we need and have a meeting in two weeks. I mean, if I'm going to do anything on this committee, I can't do it in the following week.
           We're working on a pine beetle task force report, which is…. We should be at a meeting right now to do that. I have not set foot in my constituency to do any work for one month now. Most people have forgotten who I am. It would be nice to get back there for a couple of days and take care of some pressing issues.
           We're going to be here next week for maybe one day or two, but the following week we'll probably be here most of the week anyway. So I think two weeks would work better for my own schedule. Next week is…. I won't make it — put it that way.

           K. Stewart (Chair): My suggestion would be…. Also, next week is a holiday week. Isn't it?

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Yes.

           K. Stewart (Chair): I lose track of these things. I would suggest that there is some work we're planning on doing before the next meeting to get us as prepared as we can. I meet with the Deputy Chair, and we'll try and organize the…. It will take us a while to get the information that the Clerk's preparing for us and also to organize with the secretariat for them to come to our first meeting. I suggest that we do some work in between, and the Deputy Chair and I come back with as much as we can to present to you in that meeting two weeks from now. At that time we will, hopefully, have done some preliminary work with the availability of some of the other Crowns, so that we know when those Crowns may be available to us.
           Any further issues or discussions before we close? If not, a motion to adjourn?

           D. Hayer: So moved.

           Motion approved.

           The committee adjourned at 10:22 a.m.

[ Return to: Crown Corporations Committee Home Page ]

Copyright © 2001: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada