Manitoba Committee Hansard — 11 February 1998 (Public Accounts Committee, Sitting 1, 36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-pa1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Public Accounts Chairperson Mr. Conrad Santos Constituency of Broadway Vol. XLVIII No. 1- 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 11, 1998 ISSN 0713-9462

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY - Thirty-Sixth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage Ia Prairie P.C. FILM ON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. - LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon. Brandon West P.C.

McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David, Hon. Riel P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank, Hon. Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P.

SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P. Vacant Charleswood

LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCO UNTS Wednesday, February 11, 1998 TIME- 10 a.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON- Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway) VICE-CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli) ATTENDANCE - 10-QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Stefanson Ms. Cerilli, Messrs. Dyck, Helwer, Lamoureux, McAlpine, Mrs. Render, Messrs. Sale, Santos, Tweed Substitutions: Mr. Maloway for Ms. Cerilli Mr. Sveinson for Mrs. Render Mr. Faurschou for Mr. Tweed APPEARING: Mr.

Jon Singleton, Provincial Auditor MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Public Accounts, Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4, for the year ended March 3 1, 1996 Report of the Provincial Auditor for the year ended March 31, 1996 (Volume 1) Provincial Auditor's Report on Public Accounts and the Operations of the Office of the Provincial Auditor for the year ended March 31, 1996 *** Mr. Chairperson: Will the Standing Committee on Public Accounts please come to order.

The business referred to the committee for consideration this morning are the following reports: Public Accounts, Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the year ended March 31, 1996; the report of the Provincial Auditor for the year ended March 31, 1996, Volume 1; and the Provincial Auditor's Report on Public Accounts and the Operations of the Office of the Provincial Auditor for the year ended March 31, 1996. If members do not have copies of this report, there are extra copies available. If you need them, please indicate and the page will provide you with them.

There are some preliminaries that we have to consider because there are changes in the committee membership. During intersessional resignations, the rules are this:

Section 52.5(4) of The Legislative Assembly Act, R.S.M. 1987, c.L110 which requires that during intersession a member must give notice, in writing, to the chairperson of a standing committee. Rule 80.(2) states that "A member of any Standing or Special Committee of the House who is unable to attend the business of the committee because of (

a) Death; (

b) Long illness; (

c) Resignation from the House; or (

d) Resignation from the Committee, where accepted; may be replaced by a vote of the Committee." These rules have been applied already as precedents. It is the practice of the standing committee in Manitoba to accept resignations of committee members during intersessional session meetings only by way of a signed form. This practice has been confirmed by a chairperson's ruling, Mr.

Len Evans, Brandon East, the last chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, ruled on January 29, 1991, that the established practice of the committee requires the member's signature indicating that the member wishes to be relieved of responsibility of the committee. In the above ruling, the committee agreed by unanimous consent to accept the substitution without a resignation form. Those are the rules. Any changes in the committee?

2 LEGISLATIV E AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11, 1998 Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, I move that the member for Elmwood, Mr. Maloway, be substituted for the member for Radiisson, Ms. Cerilli, who, I believe, has subm itted the required form. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Cerilli signed. This is what has been stated in the submission. I have before me the resignation of Ms. Cerilli as a member of the Standing Comm ittee on Public Accounts effective February 10, 1998. Are there any nominations to replace Ms. Cerilli? have the signed resignation. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, agai n I move that the member for Elmwood (Mr. Malowa

y) replace the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) as per the accepted procedure of the comm ittee. Mr. Ch airperson: It has been moved that Mr. Malowa y will replace Ms. Cerilli. Is it the will of the comm ittee to accept this motion? [agreed] I have another form. I have before me the resignation of Mrs. Render as a member of the Standing Comm ittee on Public Accounts, effective February I 0, 1998. Are there any nominations to replace Mrs. Render? It is sig ned with writing. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend Mr. Sveinson replace Mrs. Render on the comm ittee. Mr.

Chai rperson: The nom ination has been made. Mr. Sveinson will replace Mrs. Render. Is that agreeable to the comm ittee? [agreed] There is a problem with the third one because-1 wish to resign from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts-it is signed by somebody ��lse other than Mr. Mervin C. Tweed. Mr. Helwer: I would like to report that Mr. Tweed is away out of the province at the moment, but I would like to, with leave of the commit tet �-if the comm ittee would accept his resignation. Mr. Chai rperson : The rule, as you have heard, only by unanimous consent. [agreed] Unanimous consent obtained.

Comm ittee accepts. Somebody will replace Mr. Tweed. I will accept now any motion for replacement. Mr. Helwer: I would like Mr. Faurschou to replace Mr. Tweed. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Faurschou has been nominated to replace Mr. Tweed. Is that agreed to unanimously? [agreed] Unanimously agreed. Now we are ready to proceed. As Chairperson, I have circu lated a letter to comm ittee members yesterday requesting that members submit to me items or questions requiring detailed answers at the committee meeting. I received a proposed list of agenda items which I also circulated yesterday to all members of the comm ittee.

For any comm ittee members who do not have a copy of these age nda items, please indi cate and the page will provide you with a list. Therefore, prior to the opening sta tements, perhaps the comm ittee at this point should consider the proposed agenda before it. Does the committee wish to adopt the proposed agenda? [agreed] So it will be the proposed agenda. Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Just speaking to the agenda, I certainly have no problem with it. I again apprecia te the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) putt ing in the time and effort to prepare an agenda for the committee.

This is the second comm ittee, I believe, dealing with reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, '96, and I just really am looking for, as part of the agenda, some decision from the committee as to how we intend to proceed this morning. It will be the second opportunity to deal with that particular fiscal year. When I looked at many of the questions, some straddle '95-96; some do straddle into '96-97. They are not necessarily prioritized between those two fisca l years.

As we have done in the past, I think it would be appropriate for this committee to make a comm itment either to pass the '96 reports at the beginning of the meeting and move on to the '96-97 reports and all of the questions in the agenda or at least commit to passing the '96 reports at the end of this meeting here this morning, Mr. Chairman. -

February 11 , I998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 I guess part of that discussion, as well, should be whether or not-I am not sure what House leaders agreed upon, whether we are sitting till noon or till I2:30, but we should have some discussion around that issue as well. Other than that, I think the agenda is fi ne, but I think it should be part of the overall comm itment to how we intend to proceed this morning. *

(1010) Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I believe that the agreement in the last comm ittee meeting is dealing with the last item the min ister raised first, I2:30 adj ournment, and that was certainly what my House leader indica ted to me was the time for today. So, unless there is something dif ferent that has come up since the discussion between our deputy House leader and the government House leader, my assumption is 12 :30. Maybe we could settle that first before we move on to the other item. Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Mr. Chairman, I have not heard any thing against it any way. I would go along with 12: 30.

Mr. Chairperson: So we are agreed that this will end at I2:30 . [agreed] The only documents in proper order for reference in this comm ittee, the business before this comm ittee, are the Public Accounts for 1996, the Provincial Auditor's Report for I996, and the report on Public Accounts and the Opera tions of the Office of the Provincial Auditor for the year ended March 3I, 1996. I would ask all members to keep their questions releva nt to the business before the commi ttee as contained in this report. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, ju st a couple of comments on process.

I want first just to put on the record that I wrote to the minis ter on the 30th of January , and in that letter there was an error for which I apologize. My intention was to ind icate in that letter that we had had only one meeting in I997 to consider the '96, '95 reports. However, I foreshortened a phrase there, and I apologize to the minis ter for that error. In terms of the age nda for today, I believe we should move through the age nda in as orderly a way as we can and see where we are at the end of the meeting.

We are not prepared at this point to make a comm itment one way or the other that we will or will not pass '95-96 accounts and Auditor's Report at this time. So I propose that we start with any opening comm ents that are to be made by any of the three or four parties to the discussion and that we move through in an orderly manner. Mr. Chairperson: Opening comm ents from any of the representives of the parties? Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chairman, not bela bouring this, and I guess the letter the member for Crescentwood (Mr.

Sale) referred to and corrected in part, I also did respond to him this morning and pointed out the one error in his letter. I think we have been fa irly co-op erative in terms of how we have dealt with the agenda. As I say, when you look at the questions we have before us today, many of them do deal with periods after March 3I, '96.

I recognize those reports are not part of the official agenda, but they have certainly been tabled with this comm ittee, the '96-97 reports, and if we want to deal with the agenda in the fash ion that has been la id out, I would think we should at least get a comm itment to pass the '95-96 reports at the end of this meeting, or we should then start going through the agenda an d reprioritizing and dealing with them sequentially in '95- 96 so that we can ultima tely come to a conclusion of those reports.

I think the committee has alwa ys worked with that view to deal with the oldest reports first and start to clear items off the agenda and keep the more current issues before us. I do ·not think that is an unreasonable request, and anybody who has taken the time to look at the agenda items, if we want to deal co operatively, deal with them as outlined by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), then we should at least have that agreement of this comm ittee. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, in my reading of the agenda, there is only one item which moves forward into '96-97 and that is question I 0.

All the others occur in one form or other in Volumes I to 4 or in the Provincial Auditor's Reports. I think we have observed in this comm ittee many times that many items are multiyear in nature and begin in one fis cal period and may continue for a number of fiscal periods before they are resolved. I do not think there are any items, unless

4 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11, 1998 the min ister would lik e to point out some, that have not been raised in one form or other during '95-96. I do not want to get into a nitpicking discussion of this. Our intention is to have a full discussion on these items and see where we are at the end of the allotted time. The longer we take in this discussi on, the shorter we will have for the agenda.

So I suggest that if the minis ter is concerned about item 10, I have no problem with reversing the order of item 10 and item 11, if that is his concern, but I do not see any other that really does not occur in some form or other in the '95-96 statements before us. Mr. Chai rperson: There is a proposal here to reverse the items in proper order: item 10 will become 11; 11 will become 10. Is that agreed to by the committee? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chai rman, I as well do not want to prolong this, and I do not think the request being made is an unreaso nable one.

You can start to go through the questions and you can see the second question refers specifically to '96-97; certainly the year 2000 issues are primarily dealt with by the Provincial Auditor in reports subsequent to '95-96. The whole issue of the committee process is certainly a much more current issue addressed by the Provincial Auditor in terms of how the Public Accounts comm ittee is going to functio n moving forward. So, again, if you want to start going through them and relate specifically to '95- 96, I think there is more than the one item that the member for Crescentwood (Mr.

Sale) referred to, and I guess I am having difficulty unde:rstanding what the problem is when comm ittee asks fiJr '95-96 reports at the end of the meeti ng, realizing there will be fu ture meeti ngs, and there are reports still before us that ultimately deal with most of these issues because they do roll forward. So to agree to pass some old out standing reports which have very few specific questions related to them before us today would be a prudent thing for this committee to do. Mr. Chai rperson: What is the opinion of committee members? Any more discussion?

Beca use the more we discuss this ordering priority--after all, we have approved the age nda. I do not know what you want. Are we going to proceed with the age nda as approved, or are we going to change things around? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chair person, time is indeed precious. It is only tvvo and a half hours. We have already gone 20 minutes. I would suggest that we just proceed. The agenda has already been adopted, start off with item 1.

I am sensitive to what it is that the mini ster is saying, and we will see what happens, hopefully before 12:30, but we should just move on to item 1 and forward from there. Point of Order Mr. Chai rperson : A point of order is being raised. State your point of order, please. Mr. Sveinson: Maybe I missed something, but we ju st heard that the age nda has been adopted. I never heard that the ag enda has been adopted. We agreed to the time is what I heard, but I did not hear that the age nda has been adopted. Mr.

Chai rperson: I will entertain a motion for the adoption of the agenda to preclude any unnecessa ry exchanges which are not related to the agenda. * * * Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I was told when I became an elected member that this committee had agreed to submit age ndas . I have done so for all of the meetings in which I have been a member of this comm ittee after I learned about that rule. You indi cated there were no other items that have been put forward by other committee members.

If we are going to proceed by the established procedures of this comm ittee, then I think de fa cto this is the age nda because that is the procedure of the committee. It seems to me that unless the committee is now going to make some new rules that rescind that practice, then it is almost moot to have a motion on the agenda since the ag enda is supposed to come in the form of prepared work from commit tee members.

Other comm ittee memb ers, for whatever reason, have not submitted items at the required time as indicated by you to all committee members in your memo ofFe bruary 10-I am sorry, February 7, I believe it was, the initial one. February 10 was when you circulated these questions. So I believe that if you wish a motion , I certainly am prepared to move one, but I think that under the agreed procedures of this commit tee, this is the agenda. I have no problem with reordering items if the mi nister wishes -

February 11 , 19 98 LEGISLATIV E AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 to reorder items, but I would not agree to reordering item No. 1, because that for us is a very impo rtant issue that moves through many years of this committee's work, and indeed the reason we have prepared age ndas is evidence of the willin gness on the part of the opposition at least to try and move in a constructive manner to make the work of this comm ittee more constructive and more in line with work of other committees elsewhere. So I believe we have an agenda.

If the commit tee does not choose to honour that ag reement, then I am at a loss to know what "agreements" mean, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairperson: If we do not honour what we have been doing all along- I ju st want to make a remark-! ask is that agreed to, the agenda, and everybody says agreed to. That has been the practice. * (1 020) Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairma n, there is much more to this issue-and the member for Crescentwood knows that -in terms of the time lines of submitting questions and in terms of what the comm ittee has done in terms of trying to deal with fiscal years sequentially.

That is all that is being suggested here is when you look at these questions they straddle many years. We are certainly prepared to get into discussing these issues. They are impo rtant issues. All we are suggesting is that, when you look at the limi ted number of issues dealing with '95-96, it is not unreaso nable to agree that in two--it would have been two and a half hours or two hours-plus that we can pass out those old reports at the conclusion of the meeting. We can deal with all of these questions, get on with the agenda, agree to pass '95-96.

We still have many reports before us to be dealt with, the opportunity to ask questions on all of these issues. There is nothing that would in any way stymie the member for Crescentwood or any other member ultimately from asking questions on any of these issues as we move forward with the reports that we are going to be dealing with. So we are saying: let us just get some of the older reports passed, dealt with, off the agenda, and deal with the more current age ndas. That is all we are aski ng, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I have already made my position cl ear and it is not changing.

I am prepared at the end of the meeting to consider where we are and to assess progress-and I have not a closed mind on the iss ue-but I am not prepared to make a comm itment at this time. The min ister makes much of his wish to move sequen tially. I restate the fa ct that every single one of these questions, with the exception perhaps of question 10 , deals with '95-96 fiscal year and, as is common, many of these issues recurred in the past and will recur in the futu re. So, finally, the government had all kinds of time to call meetings to consider these accounts. There was a comm itment made by the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) and the House leader, the government House leader, to intersessional comm ittee hearings. Suddenly now that there is a session planned, there is a flurry of intersessional committees called three weeks before the sitting of the House has been ann ounced. The government had all of January, they had all of the fa ll, they had all of last spring. I approached the Fina nce minis ter personally several times and asked for the scheduling for committee meetings. He referred the item to the House leaders and indi cated that his preference was to deal with the House leaders.

That was fine as fa r as I was concerned. The fa ct is that we have requested and requested and requested that this committee meet. We requested that this commit tee deal on a more comprehensive basis with the standards prevalent in other Public Accounts committees across the country. We have indicated informally our willin gness to talk about time allocation in terms of Estima tes time. So we have been both co-operative and proactive on this issue. We have submitted ag endas.

We have kept the tone of the meetings informational and not confrontational, but quite frank ly we are more than disappointed that the number of meetin gs held by this committee has not increased in spite of the co-operation and in spite of urgings from the Provincial Auditor to put the commit tee on a footing that is more in keeping with modem Public Accounts fu nctions across the country. So let us proceed. Let us have the discussions that are indica ted here, and let us come to a mind close to the ad journment time about what we do about these accounts, but let the minis ter not suggest that it is

6 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11 , 19 98 somehow the oppositiOn that is holding up consideration of old accounts. The abil ity to

schedule committee meetings is the Finance min ister's ability, not the Chair's abil ity as it should be, but it is the Fina nce minister's prerogative. He has chosen not to exercise that preroga tive except for one occasion to consider the accounts now before us. That is his prerogative, but he ought not then to suggest that we should be under some kind of obl igation to pass these accounts, because we have already spent two hours talking about them. I think the members know that something of this thickness often takes many, many hours in Estimates.

The detail in Public Accounts far exceeds the detail in Estima tes. The appropriateness of having many meetings during the year, as is the case in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, to work through the accounta bil ity of how the government actually performed as opposed to its budget in Estimates process, which is how it propos�d to perform, is something that this provinces does not do very well. That has been well attested to over the past eight years.

So, if the minis ter wants to have a discussion about who is responsible for not passing Public Accounts, let him remember that it is his prerogative to call these meetings, and he has chosen not to do so until, at very short notice, we last week were asked to come to a Public Accounts meeting and to submit age nda items. At such short notice in fa ct that I could not consult my caucus colleagues, because we did not have a caucus meeting between the call of this wmm ittee and the having of the committee; our caucus meeting is today in fa ct.

So we can talk about this for two and a half hours, if the min ister wants to . I am quite prepa red to do that, or, we can go on and have a discussion of substance in terms of where this comm ittee goes. But I have made my position cl ear, I am not prepared to give an ad vance comm itment on the passa ge of 19 95-96 Public Accounts. I have said that now three times. I will not say it again. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the member for Crescentwood, I guess, is right on one point. We could discuss this for the rest of the moming, and I certainly disa gree with most of what he has said .

I think he forgets the role that our House leaders play when it comes to the setting of committees and committee dates and comm ittee times. But, having said that, I think in keeping with what has general ly been a spirit of co operation in terms of how this comm ittee has fu nctioned and some good fa ith moving forward this morning in terms of that, if we can move through this agenda, it is not unreaso nable to pass the '95-96 reports. I would agree that we should get on with the items before us, Mr. Chairman.

So, with that, I would certainly recommend then that, instead of tinkering with shifting one item around, deal with the agend a as outl ined and get on with it and with a view to try and take the last five minu tes of the meeting and determine whether or not we have had a substantive enough discussion to pass the '95-96 reports. Mr. Chai rperson: The Chair thanks the honourable Minister of Finance. We can proceed. Now I am on the stage where everybody is giving opening statem ents. The honourable Mini ster of Fina nce, you have not given your statement yet. I am asking you now if you can. Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I think we have had enough of a discussion. I am prepared to get on with the ag enda. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the honourable mini ster. The critic of the official opposition, Mr. Sale, do you have an opening statement? Mr. Sale: Mr.

Chairperson, I want to first record my appreciation to the mini ster and to the Auditor and to the various depa rtments involve d in providing responses which were prepared during 19 97 to various questions that were asked in Public Accounts comm ittee meetings: a letter from the mini ster in regard to the Child and Family Services information systems project; a letter to the Chairperson in regard to the attest aud itor appointments for various groups; a letter to myself , interestingly undated-! am sure that was not the intent, but the minis ter can probably find the date-on the PMTS payments issue; and finally a letter on September 8, which will come up again in our dis cussion today in regard to Revenue Canada and the previous owners of the Winnipeg Jets.

So I apprec ia te - -

February 11 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 the follow-ups to those various questions that we have raised. I also want to record my appreciation, and I would hope the appreciation of members opposite, to the Provincial Auditor for his very thorough and helpf ul presentation, which he made to the members of the Public Accounts commit tee, with the exception of the mini ster who was not able to atte nd that day, but who, I think, received the same presentation at a somewhat slightly later date in regard to best practi ces. I thought that was a very helpful meeting. I think Mr.

Rocan was also at that meeting, and I believe we had a couple of other members as well at that meeting. I found that helpful, and I thought that it was the sort of thing that as a Public Accounts committee we should be doing on a more regular basis. So those really are my only opening comments. I just wanted to record my appreciation for those ac tivities. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Sale. Does the Provincial Auditor have any statem ent to deliver to the comm ittee? Mr. Jon Singleton (Provincial Auditor): No, Mr. Chairman, I do not. *

(1030) Mr. Chairperson: We will now consider the agenda. We will now proceed. The first item of business on the agenda is question No. 1, commit tee process. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I put this on the agenda of our last meeting and brought it fo rward to this meeting. It was the last question on the agenda at the last meeting. I think it was appropriate to move it to first place in this meeting, because I think that it is cl ear to all committee members, although it is probably not clear to Manitobans, that the Public Accounts committee fu nction in Manitoba is significa ntly out of line with best practices.

Now the government has made much of initiatives that would be in line with adopting best practices. There is a great deal of information put forward by the government around its various initiatives: better services, better systems; the desktop management initiative; the atte mpts to measure government performance. Those are laudable initiatives to atte mpt to more transparently put in place mechanisms to measure how we perform.

I think the Auditor did a very useful thing for us when he summarized concerns going back over many years, in fa ct to 19 87 when the Public Accou nts committee perhaps was first made aware, although I have not looked at the minu tes of that year, that the Canadian Council on Public Accounts Comm ittees adopted guidelines to sig nifica ntly improve Public Accounts committees.

The Auditor pointed out in a number of years and a number of conversations and most recently in his presentation to us in December that Manitoba has not signifi cantly changed any practices since 19 87 as a result of the changes in the recommendations of the Public Accounts committees. In fa ct, the Auditor said and, I think, maintains that Manitoba's Public Accounts committee meets fewer of these national guidelines than any other ju risdiction in Canada, which is not a record of which we should be proud.

Now, there are many specific, very important items in these guidelines that have to do with government accountab il ity and the ability of the opposition and the public to hold government accountable not ju st for what it says it is going to do, which we do through the process of Estimates and budget debate, but for what it actual ly achieved, which is an issue of fa ct finding and ana lysis, not an issue of assessing policy. It may assess the wisdom of policy, but not the right of the government to set policy. That is not in question.

For example, a Public Accounts committee should, according to the CCPAC guidelines, adopt a written mandate and statement of operating principles-we do not have one-have the right to inves tigate all past, current and comm itted expenditures of government and recipients of public moneys. We ju st had a long discussion here in which the Mini ster of Finance (Mr.

Stef anson) wanted us to limit our discussions to a particular year and to pass that particula r year, and he was concerned whether or not the questions appropriately dealt with the parti cular year that we have not yet passed and that is on the agenda today. It is very interesting that the guidelines indica te the right to examine comm itted expenditure s, for example, the comm itment to a new general ledger system, the

8 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11 , 19 98 comm itment to desktop management, the potential serious problems around the year 2000 issues, all of which have been raised by the Audiitor in one form or another and not ju st this year. A very important issue-I recall an exchange between myself and the Finance minis ter that raised the issue of whether or not we could direct questions in this commit tee directly to the Provincial Auditor. There was one meeting in which th e minis ter essentially at tempted to intervene to si detrack questions that were directed to the Auditor.

A suggestion of the CCPAC guideline is that the Public Accounts commit tee should have and use the power to summon persons, papers and records. This is a very sig nific ant power which this commit tee does not apparently have. Fourth, this is an area where we certainly are concerned and the Auditor is concerned: Be concerned with how government policy is administered with value for money in the impl ementation of government policy rather than with government policy itself . In other words, regardless of the policy, did we get value for it?

Have the right as a commit tee to request the Provincial Auditor to conduct speciific reviews, not to have specific reviews only conducted when the Auditor sees fit or when the Fina nce miniister requires it or requests it. Have the right to review proposed changes to the act and changes to our mandate. Scrutinize the operations of the Provincial Auditor. In other provinces, the Provincial Auditor comes before the Public Accounts comm ittee with his plans or her pl ans for spendi ng, for staffing, for how the office fu nctions and how well it has fu nctioned in the past. Mr.

Chairperson, here is a power 1lhat this commit tee certainly does not have: the right to call witnesses, as does the federal Finance committee of Parliament, to call witnesses and to take testimony under oath-that is, to conduct its business in such a serious way that witnesses are sworn and not simply providing information as a matter of courtesy. To make recommendations to the Legisla tive Assembly. Well, I am not aware that we have tried to do that. Perhaps the committee would allow that to happen, I do not know. It is certainly not in any written mandate that I have been able to find.

Lastly, in the list that I am looking at here, although this is not the compl ete list, exclude cabinet min isters from comm ittee membership. Now, the minis ter has expressed concern about the partisan political nature of this comm ittee, and I would agree with him that there have been times -and perhaps it will be written today Lhat this is another one of them, that this is a partisan exchange. But one of the reasons that it is partisan is that the Finance mini ster calls the meetings and sits in the position of the chief respondent to all the questio ns.

His staff does not respond; other minis ter do not come and respond; other senior staf f do not come and respond. I would suggest to the comm ittee that one of the reasons it is so partisan is that there are, on both sides of most exchanges, two elected people. If we were asking questions of the deputy minis ters of a variety of departments, I think we would see that the tone and tenor of the discussion would be very different because it is not the deputy's position to argue partisan issues, so the relevance of partisan questions would not be there.

Most other Public Accounts comm ittees in Canada do not have the Mini ster of Finance sitting at the front of the table beside the Chairperson fielding all the questions. It is fa irly clea r to me that the recommendations of CCPAC are not partisan recommendatio ns.

They are recommendations about good accounting principles, good auditing principles, good accounta bility principles, and they were put forward not by parti san people, but by provincial auditors, by public officials; not by publicly elected officials, but by public officials, public officials that have a long, long honourable record of serving provincial legisla tures and putting forward recommendations to strengthen transparency and accountab ility of the public accounting process. Manitoba has not changed any of its procedures signif ica ntly in 10 years.

It is the worst province in compl iance with the CCPAC guidelines. * (1 040) The Provincial Audit or, when I was elec ted, was Carol Bellringer. She met with us, and she indicated to us her concern that our committee was way out of date, that she was making ef forts to move it forward. The -

February II , I 998 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 Acting Auditor for a period of time, Warren Johnson, who ably filled that office, indica ted the same thing. When you talk with previous Auditors, you get the same story. This province has resisted all moves in the past I 0 years to make a more modem, transparent, accountable, imp artial, nonpa rtisan fun ction possible for this committee. I believe that my honoura ble friend the member for Inkster's (Mr.

La moureux) predecessor-the leader, the leader before the current leader resigned-in fa ct made many of these points to Public Accounts, so this is not an NDP fixation . I believe that the concern was shared by other parties who sat at this committee. So I think that it is time that we called a halt to this process and said to the government: we have made your lif e a whole lot easier in Public Accounts over the la st two and a half years.

We have given you adva nce warning of questions, an d we may have made your officials' lives more busy in the week or 10 days before the meetings, because they have actually had to do some preparatory work, but having sat in some of those offices, I know they did much of that work an yway, because they sat there and usually pretty ably an tici pated the kinds of questions that might come out an yway, an d that is what minis ter's briefing books are for.

Nevertheless, we have made the mi nister's lif e considerably easier by complying with the request-not the request, the agreement of the committee for agen das, an d we have worked very hard to keep the tenor of these meetings from becoming strident an d partisan. The Auditor has commented to that eff ect, that he believes the meetings have been better, the Fina nce minis ter has commented to that eff ect, and Fina nce officials have commented to that effect. Now, it is a two-way street, Mr. Chairperson, on which we drive. This is not a one-wa y street.

Compli an ce and co-operation with modem principles of Public Accounts practice are not simply for the opposition to pursue. It is also for the government to pursue, and this government has not pursued it. The opposition has co-operated, has raised the question, has indica ted readiness to move, has proposed that the commi ttee itself , as it did in the question of agendas some years back, could in fa ct adopt practices that were in line with other Public Accounts committees. Now, some of them would require changes to rules, but a very few of them. Having consulted the Cle rk of the Legislative Assembly, Mr.

Remnant, he indicates to me that Manitoba precedent is what Manitoba comm ittees do, that there is no written guideline that says the Mini ster of Finance shall call the meetings of the Public Accounts committee. Let me underline that. It is the Minis ter of Finance who calls them. That is the Cl erk's understa nding. The House leaders simply fa cil itate an agreed-upon date. The House leaders do not go to the Fina nce minis ter an d say: Mr. Finance Minis ter, it is time you had a Public Accounts meeting. The Fina nce minister initia tes that discussion. Perhaps the Premier (Mr.

Film on) and he have a short, informal meeting; perhaps he does it on his own, but it is the Fina nce minis ter who calls the meetings. The Cle rk is clear about that; certainly I think the committee is clear about that. So it is not the House leaders who call the meetings. They merely make the legal arrangements for them an d their names go on the agreement I suppose, but it is the Finance minister who initia tes the calling of the meetings. There are many other things that we could do. We could agree to a

schedule of meetings, that within 90 days of the tab ling of Public Accounts we would meet for a day or tWo days or for two scheduled meetings or four scheduled meetings. We could set a calendar. That would be within the committee's ability, according to my discussi on with the Cle rk. There are very few things that as a committee we could not agree to do and then do them, particularly given that the members of the government have a large ma jority, or at least a very significa nt ma jority, on the committee. If the government members wish to go to a regular meeting

schedule or to agree on meetings within 90 days of the end of period or 30 days or whatever they want, they could do that. If the minister wished to go to a fixed timetable at which comm ittee mee tings were called, then he could avo id the question of whether the meetings were called by the Chair of the commit tee or by the minister. If it was on a fixed timetable, it would not matter. But underline that there are many, many things we could do. The legal issues of calling an d swearing witnesses, that would require, in my understand ing, some kind of legislated mandate within the rules an d procedures of the Assembly.

10 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11, 1998 But there are many things we could do to strengthen this committee volunta rily. The govt!rnment has agreed to one-a gendas . Of course, that puts the whole onus on the opposition, not on the governm�mt at all. It makes the government's lif e much more convenient because the minis ter can then hew to the agenda and resist questions that do not follow the agenda.

So fa r from sugge sting that somehow it is our responsibili ty to get Accounts passed , I would suggest that it is the government's responsibility to convene enough meetings for fu ll discu ssion, to not do it in a hurried way, as this meeting was held, and to adopt some of the things that it willin gly could adopt, that we sitting around this table could adopt, that would make this process transpa rent.

Now I would invite the minis ter and any other comm ittee members to respond, but I think we need to stop evading this question and stop the process of having Manitoba be the worst in the country in its Public Accounts fu nction, with absolutely no prospect currently underway that would change that sad position. Mr. Chairperson : Mr. Lamoureux indicated he wants to speak. Mr. Lamour eux: I would concur virtually with everything that the member for Crescentwood, Mr. Sal e, has put on the record with respect to Public Accounts. I see very little value to Public Accounts today.

In fa ct, when I look at the formaliz ation of the agenda and the idea of submitting questions in advance, one could ultima tely argue that Mr. Sale could ju st be given back, or that members wanting to put a question forward would just be given some sort of correspondence written back to them. I think that, in order for us to give any sort of validity to Public Accounts in the future, there is a need for change.

I apprecia ted very much the Auditor's office presentation that was made to members of this committee in which it was clearly pointed out that there can be value to having a Public Ac:counts comm ittee, and I think there is that need for change. A part of it is to see if we can maybe strike together some sort of a steering comm ittee that would look at ways in which we can enhance the roles and the responsibili ties of this particular committee.

I think that would be a very-it would be something of value corning out of toda y's meeting if in fa ct there was an agreement that we would have a commit tee that would be struck to look at how we could be changing our Public Accounts so at the very least it is doing some of the things that every other Public Accounts commit tee is doing, not only in Canada, but in many other ju risdictions. I recall the need for reform. The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) talked about the former leader Paul Edwards talking about the need for change .

I will go back to '89 when I was sitting down in caucus with individuals like Herold Driedger, who was the Chair of Public Accounts at that time, where we debated for hours on the need to see some change within Public Accounts. There is the idea, for example , of having annual general reports coming before Public Accounts, where we have the Estimates books coming before the Estima tes, and then you have the annual reports coming before bodies such as Public Accounts. There were a number of ideas that were out there in terms of how we believed back then we could enhance the role of the Public Accounts committee.

I really and truly believe that, if in fa ct we want to give some validity to this comm ittee, we do need to strike a steering comm ittee, and by doing that I think then we would be doing a better service to Manitobans, because it is only from the ef forts from very few from within the Chamber that there is any value to this comm ittee at all today, and that is probably exaggera ting its value. I would look to the minis ter in giving guidance to other committee members in agreeing that there is a need for change . Surely to goodness, as he sits back he has to recognize that need is there.

I look to the Minis ter of Fi nance and his coll eagues on this comm ittee and would appeal to them to reflect on the presentati on that was offered to all members of the commit tee back, I believe it was in December, from the Auditor's office. I am sure each and every one of you would concur that there is a lot more that we could be doing as a Public Accounts committee and there is no real need for us to be putting off any sort of action to that effect.

I am interested, and if I were to pose a question to the Minis ter of Finance, is to find out from him what he believes would be the first step at addressing the need for change. The Auditor's office -

February 11, 1998 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 talked about a steering committee. Is that something which he would be open to see put together? *

(1050) Mr. Stefanson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It certainly is one of the most impo rtant issues on today's agenda. As the member for Crescentwood indica ted, I was unable to att end the first presentation from the Provincial Auditor which had representation from all parties in the Legisla ture, I believ e, but I did have a separate presentation and discussion with the Provincial Auditor shortly after that first meeting.

It certainly is a comprehensive overview that he has provided, some excellent suggestions for this !:ommittee, certainly some significa nt challenges in terms of the changes to this committee. Some of these would include areas lik e-as has been ref erred to-operating in a nonpartisan manner, and we can get into a discussion of what that really does mean.

Als o, issues of not being concerned with government policy, rather with value for money in the impleme ntation of policy, again, in some aspects, a signific ant change to how this committee would fu nction; does not examine the rationale for government programs in terms of the Public Accounts comm ittee; and performs its role without developing another level of bureaucracy, which is important to all of us. So those are some of the challenges. The members have touched on some of the other challenges.

From my point of view and our government's point of view, the Public Accounts commit tee is one impo rtant part of accounta bil ity, but it is just one important part of accountab il ity.

The Estima tes process is certainly one, areas like Question Period, the other committees that deal with other reports and so on, so there are various avenues for public accountab il ity, along with other internal dyna mics that government has, the introduction of our Manitoba Measures recently, the changes to our financial accounta bility act, a series of things that enhance accountability of our government today and fu ture governments.

I see a lot of value personally, and I believe our government sees a lot of value to the information that has been provided by the Provincial Auditor in terms of how the Public Accounts commit tee should ultima tely fun ction. When the member for Inkster asks how I would see this moving forward, I have had some correspondence over the last several weeks. I think we have exchanged a couple of letters each, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and myself , on this issue of whether or not there is agreement to change, how we move forward with change and so on.

Certainly the indications I have given to the member for Crescentwood and through him, I bel ieve, to his particular party, is we believe that the first step should be a discussion of House leaders because it is just one aspect of accountab ility. If you look at our Estimates process, at 240 hours of Estimates process we have amongst the most comprehensive in Canada. Our Detailed Estimates books, the information provided is amongst the most comprehensive. So, on that side of the equation, we stack up very well in terms of the accounta bility of the Estima tes process relative to other provinces.

I think in most other areas, we stack up either very well or reasonably well. In the area of Public Accounts, I ackno wledge that there can be imp rovements to the Public Accounts committee.

So my suggestion and our suggestio n is that the first step should be that House lea ders should sit down and agree that we are prepared to look at accountab ility in totality, recognizing that this is an important part of that accountability, and this comm ittee could certainly pla y a role on this very specific issue in terms of making recommenda tions how we could improve how we function, potentially the implem entation, the timing of when that should take place.

I believe members have suggested at what stage it happens, whether it happens during this mandate, whether it happens right at the front end of the next government, and so on. I think issues ar ound timi ng, issues around how it fu nctions and so on, this committee could offer advice, but I think the first step has to be that House leaders agree that it will be one component. We will look at all of the others and we will basically overhaul many aspects of how we currently fu nction. I think members expressed their frustration about Public Accounts committee.

I would also say that in many respects our Estimates process, I would hope we could all agree, can be improved upon. When I come into some of the meetings with some of the departments and hear the kinds of discussion and what is taking pla ce, in many cases that is often not as productive as it could be either.

12 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11, 1998 So I would suggest that, when you look at the issue of Public Accounts, it is one very important component of the total accounta bili ty, and the first step should be that House leaders agree that it is impo rtant to get on with accounta bility. We have had problems in terms of some of our parties getting together in terms of House leaders meeting on various issues. We have had ma jor problems over the last while. We have been prepared to meet as LAMC. We have had problems with one particular party being unwilling to do that.

I would agree that I would like to put a lot of those things behind us and move forward with how we can enhance the performance of the Legisla ture and the accounta bility of the Legisla ture. The first discussion should be House leaders agreeing that it is important to all of us, it is important to all members of the Legislature. Let us agree to address these other aspects as part of a total, comprehensive package, and with that we are certainly prepared to move forward. I have corresponded that with the minis ter and the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).

I am not quite clear from his response whether or not he is in agreement with that or not, and I would certainly welcome the comments from the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and other members, but we are interested in getting on with reti)rm to the Public Accounts commi ttee. We are also interested in getting on with reform in terms of other aspects of how we function in terms of other comm ittees, in terms of the Estima tes process, and so on.

If there was a will on all parts, we could come together with a much better package that allows more focused opportunity for accountab ility at the front end, as the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) describes, the Estima tes process, the beginning of the budget. Public Accounts is the back end after the reports have been prepared and the year is over in terms of how we function, in terms of what really did take place during that fiscal year. We do believe that the total process can definitely be improved, but it is a total process.

Public Accounts is one part of accountab ility, recognizing it is an impo rtant part of accountability, so on that kind of a basis, we are very interested in moving forward and would gladly do so as soon as possiible, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Minis ter. Any other comments? Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, a question, a little bit of hist ory, perhaps the Cle rk will know and perhaps the min ister will know. How did the commi ttee come to the decision to have agendas submitted by members and to create an orderly process of agendas, and when was that decision taken? Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairman, my recollection is that was one of a few items that was referred to in previous Auditor's Reports in terms of enhancements to how this committee could func tion. The comm ittee determined that there was merit to it and adopted it. I guess I am an ticip ating where the member mig ht be heading with that particular question. I think what we are talking about here is more than the setting of agend as. We are talking about a ma jor overhaul to how the Public Accounts comm ittee would ultimately function.

We are talking about potentially changing the membership from whether or not cabinet min isters are members of the committee, who appears, who answers questions, whether it is mini sters, deputy mini sters, whether you can call witnesses. So if that is where the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) is heading, I would say that what we are talking about here is fu ndamental reform that I think we all agree should take place. All we are saying is, while fundamental reform has to take place here, it is part of a total package that also requires reform.

We are prepared to get on with that, and we would look for the willi ngness of members of all parties in the Legi slature to get on with that. Let us look at the total package and let us get a better package for all members to fu nction in terms of accountab il ity. Mr. Sale: I thank the minister for the answer, which is the answer that I expected he would give. In other words, this commit tee sitting in commit tee made a determination that there would be a procedural improvement if it submitted age ndas, and it agreed as a committee to do so and then it, at least in my time, has lived by that agreement.

It puzzles me why, if we are comm itted to a journey, that we cannot begin with some steps on that journey. I mean, there are lots of fam ous aphorisms about jou rneys of a thousand miles

February 11, 1998 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 begin with a few steps. There are steps this comm ittee can take, so let us see some commitment from the government that indeed they are serious about the journey. I am glad to hear the minis ter's words, but the min ister has specific things that he could agree to, and this committee has specific steps by which it could improve its fu nction and to which it could agree in committee. That has been the Manitoba practice.

I took the trouble of consulting the Cle rk of the Legisla tive Assembly about this and his indication to me-now the Cl erk can be overruled by the Assembly obviously, but his indication to me and his ad vice to me was that comm ittees in Manitoba make their own determination of their own internal operating rules. I agree with the minis ter that some of the things which we are seeking to do would require in all likelihood consent of the Assembly to a motion recommending some change in procedure from this commit tee, but there are many things that would not require such consent.

They simply are a matter of committee agreement and procedure. So let the minis ter indi cate some things to which he is prepared to give assent that are not legislative in nature but are procedural. I simply, as he well knows, was eliciting the precedent of the decision to use age ndas, which was a commit tee decision. Nobody asked the House leaders about that one. So let us see some earnest of where the mi nister says he is prepared to go. Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairman, I guess I cannot help but be repetitive, and I have corresponded with the member for Crescentwood, and I would be interested in the response from the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that we are more than prepared to look at changes to the Public Accounts committee, and we see value in the chang es. We think ultima tely it will lead to more meetings. It will lead to more time, it will lead to more input, it will lead to potentially even more work on behalf of officials and so on.

It all adds value to our fu nctioning as members of the Legis lature, but as I concluded in the letter I just sent to the member for Crescentwood, I indicate : In conclusion, I continue to believe that a discussion of a change or expanded role for the committee should begin with the House leaders. The devotion of more time to the committee's acti vities will require rebalancing with the other activities of the Legis lature. With your party's concurrence, our government is comm itted to commencing those discussions as quickly as possible.

We are comm itted to reforming th is committee, but we feel very strongly that there is an opportunity also to reform other aspects of how this Legisla ture fu nctions, how commit tees functio n and we should be looking at it as a package as opposed to an incremental activity or a change in one area without looking at the total package.

When I look at our Estimates process, being on one side of that process I see opportunities fo r improvement in the Estimates process as well, and I think we should be looking at the total accountab ility package and looking at at least launching that process, then this committee can certainly play a very significant role in terms of how we would see this comm ittee changing and moving forward is part of that package. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, the mi nister has indicated that we all agree that the fundamental change is in fa ct necessary.

I guess where I am a little bit nonsupp ortive is in terms of the method or the procedure by which he would like to see that change take place. The Mini ster of Finance would like to see the broader accountab ility question of government being addressed through the House leaders.

Having had numerous, many discussions as a House leader with both government and opposition House leaders in the past, my suggestion to the Minis ter of Fina nce is that if everyone, as he himself indicates, is in fu ll agreement that there is a need for fu ndamental change, nothing prevents this committee from striking or getting three individuals to sit down, to start the ball rolling in terms of the process as to what sort of changes we feel are necessa ry that can be made.

I believe that the Auditor's office would in fa ct make itself available for this group of three to sit down, to answer questions on what other ju risdictions are doing for that group to be able to look at what other ju risdictions are doing, and, most importantly, for this group of three indivi duals to share those experiences with other caucus colleagues. By doing that, there will be more pressure then on the House leaders to be able to address this parti cular issue of accounta bility through the Public Accounts.

I do not dispute there is a need for change in many other aspects, including the Estima tes process, but we are not necessarily going to be able to tackle all of them at one time. What I see today is virtually no value to a

14 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11, 19 98 Public Accounts commi tte e. If we do take the initiative as comm ittee members to be able to ju st at the very least see and take a look at what changes we can incorporate without having to go into the Chamber that would positively impact the comm ittee, wonderful; and if there are some legislative changes 1that are necessa ry, then we will bring it to the House leaders' atte ntion.

If we get our act together first and foremost as a comm ittee, ensuring that there is that caucus dialogue, ensuring then, by doing that, that the House leaders will treat it more seriously, then we have a chance at getting it done. * (1 100) I would suggest to you that if we ju st leave it up to the House leaders, even if the House leaders were to agree to do something, the first thing they are going to do is they are going to ask for a comm ittee of sorts to get together to look at what sort of changes we want. So why do we not pre-empt that?

If one wanted to, you could say that any sort of recommendations that would come forward would be reported back to the comm ittee, we then would present it to the House leaders or respective caucuses in a formal fa shion, but, most importantly, it would not have to take ef fect until after the next provincial election. I think that maybe the minis ter would see some merit in something of that nature, quite possibly. So I would ask the minis ter if he concurs that there is a need for fundamental change.

If he: concurs with that, then why would we not auth orize or at least sanction three members of this committee from each of the three political parties just to explore and report back to the next Public Accounts comm ittee met:ting? What do we have to lose by doing that? Mr. Chai rperson: Any other comments? Mr. Stefanson: As I have indi cated, Mr. Chairman, and to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamou reux), I see that there is an opportunity to improve how this comm ittee fu nctions.

I think we all agree that there is an opportunity to improve how this commit tee fu nctions in terms of accounta bilit y and additional information and some of the specific recommendations that have come from the review done by the Provincial Auditor and the comparisons done with other ju risdictions. But, again, recognizing the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) ref erred to at least a couple of provinces in his remarks-the province of Albe rta, the province of Ontari o-well, Albe rta spends 20 days on its Estimates process; Ontari o spends 96 hours.

Six to 12 mini stries are reviewed with a maximum of 15 hours per min istry. Compa re that, I ask the member for Inkster, to what we do here in the province of Manitoba . We have indica ted that our House leader is prepared to sit down lit erally, immedia tely. I have had discussions with him. I have shared with him the correspondence that I have been sharing with the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) on behalf of his party and our view on the issue.

The first step could be for them to sit down imm edia tely and say: is there agreement to look at a comprehensive overhaul and change to how we fu nction on all of these areas, the Estima tes area, the Public Accounts committee, and so on? That is all we are suggesting. Let us get that ag reement. Let us get that process moving. Then we can as a comm ittee potentially strike a subcomm ittee or whatever process we want to come forward with what we see as positive changes to how we will fu nction. But let us get that agreement as the first step. We are prepared to sit down as quickly as possible.

We are going back in the Legi slature March 6. We can have another Public Accou nts comm ittee anytime in a short period to strike a subcommittee or whatever to deal with issues in this area, but let us get that agreement that we can improve the total package and do not do things on an ad hoc or an incremental basis without looking at other opportunities for change . That is all we are suggesting. I know the member has some his tory in terms of trying to reform other aspects of how the Legisla ture has fu nctioned.

At one point there seemed to be significa nt progress and then for various reasons there maybe has not been as much progress as many would like. But I think there is an opportunity here, because there appe ars to be a will. I do not know why there would be a reluctance to say: as the first step, let us have our House leaders and representatives get together, agree that these are the areas we want to -

February 11 , 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA IS address, agree on a process, agree to have us as a resource in terms of the Public Accounts committee and start moving through on that process and looking at the changes, looking at the timin g, looking at the implem entation and all of those fa ctors. I do not think that is an unreasonable approach. think it is a better approach in terms of ultimately improving everything. I know the member is saying, well, let us maybe get a little bit now and improve it somewhat.

I would say if we are going to finally get into this, we have a comprehensive review from the Provincial Audi tor, we have comparisons, and let us step up to the plate and do it on a comprehensive basis as opposed to just a partial basis or an ad hoc basis. I think there is an opportunity, and we are prepared to be a part of that process. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate the mini ster's indication that he is prepared to move on this issue early in the session with a second meeting of this committee in 1998 to strike a working group to do the kind of proposed comprehensive changes to which he refers.

He appears to want to correct himself . I am prepared to cede to the mi nister. Mr. Stef anson: Well, I always get nervous when the member for Crescentwood speaks for me. He was correct to a certain point, but I think he has to put as part of that that the first step is for the House leaders to agree on a total review, a comprehensive review of how we are going to deal with the other issues, particularly the Estima tes process, the other committee process, and how we will move forward as a total packa ge.

If we get that kind of agreement amongst all of us that we are willing to take on that entire initiative, then I certainly see this committee meeting early in our next session and dete rmining what role we should play, whether it is through a subcomm ittee, how we move forward, how we provide advice and value and recommendations as part of that total, comprehensive review. So he was partly right, but I think it is very impo rtant that he links it to the total package, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sale: To be clear, I believe the Finance minis ter (Mr.

Stef anson) is saying that the first step is a meeting of the House leaders, in his view. He also indica ted that his House leader was prepared to do that. I took that as agreed then that this was something that would easily happen and that that would lead to a meeting of this comm ittee, which would lead to the definition of what a comprehensive reform would look like. So I do not think I was taking lib erty with the minis ter. I want to ta ble a document which I believe all members have, which is the basis of the presentation of the Provincial Auditor to the members and to the minis ter.

I have only provided one copy, because I believe all members have it already and, indeed, the Cl erk's office may have it already. I think it should form part of our record for future discussions. Mr. Cha irperson, I also want to table a document, which is a draft of a report which in perhaps this form or perhaps in an amended form may appear in a report of the Provincial Auditor in the near future . I do have enough copies, I believe, for all members, and I would like to just refer briefly to this.

The Provincial Auditor, subsequent to his presentations to us, is in the process of preparing his next report, which I am not sure when it will be released but probably somewhat soon because it looks like it is in pretty final form in this draft. The Provincial Auditor kindly supplied a draft of his comments to both government and opposition members and asked for our comments in regard to his recommendation, which I think is a sign also of a good process on the part of the Provincial Auditor to solicit comments on his recommenda tions.

I am appreciative of his careful procedure in this regard, because I think it is appropriate that he has provided this document to all members of the committee. I believe Mr. Helwer and Mr. Santos both had it and then di stributed it to their members. At least I assume Mr. Helwer would have distributed it. I am not sure about that, but let me assume that. Basically in regard to this set of recommendations, I want to put on the table a motion which essentially subsumes the recommendation of the Auditor on the page marked draft copy, page 40. I would li ke to move, seconded by the member for Elmw ood (Mr.

Maloway), that the Public Accounts commit tee take steps to transform itself into a more effective force in government accountab ility.

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11 , 1998 The wording of that motion is on the document that I have tabled with slight changes. Mr. Chairperson: I need a written form of the motion, Mr. Sale. Mr. Sale: Okay. Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by Mr. Sal e-and there is no need for a seconder in this committee -that this comm ittee, Public Accounts comm ittee of Manitoba, take steps to transform itself into a more effective force in government accounta bility. Any discussion? *

(1110) Mr. Sale: Just to introduce this motion, Mr. Chairperson, the Auditor has provided from 1988 onwards recommen dations of the comm ittee, the federal committee that recommends changes to Public Accounts process, the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Commi ttees. The Auditor appears to believe, and I certainly will let him speak for himself on this, but he appears to believe that the committee could take steps to transform itself. We do not need to wait for everything else to happen first.

My brief meeting with the Clerk of the House of the Legislative Assembly indicates the same kind of assumption that commi ttees in Manitoba can take steps to change their procedures and that, given that the government has a ma jority in all commi ttees, this is not threat ening the government's abil ity to control agendas . Certai nly it is within the precedent and past pra ctice of this comm ittee to make substantive changes.

I have acknowledged today that there are some things which we might well seek to do in line with the Auditor's recomm endati ons that would require consent of the Legislative Assembly, but there are many things that we could do without that consent. So this is a general motion which indica tes the willingness of the commi ttee to take seriously what the mini ster said in his remarks, and that is that we should transform ourselves into a more effective tool, that there are many opportunities for doing so which the min ister appears to acknowledge, and I believe we should get on with it and pass the motion. Mr.

Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chairman, in light of the discussion and the member for Crescentwood's recap earlier of my comments and comm itments, I am puzzled by this motion because he seemed to agree-! will put words in his mouth now-that the House leaders should start the process, get on with the comprehensive review, if we are going to have an early meeting in the next session to determine just precisely the role we will play in terms of providing adv ice on the changes to the Public Accounts commi ttee, whether we do a subcomm ittee of the Public Accounts comm ittee and how we move forward.

He has now tab led a draft report of a report to ultimately come from the Provincial Auditor which has not been tabled or officially made public and is not the final report, is one of his backgro unds or sources for his motion. So I would suggest that there is absolutely no need for this motion based on what I understand are the commitments and undertakings of all of us around this table, to have the House leaders get on with the process, to look at the comprehensive review.

In light of that commitment and the fa ct that we do not have the final report from the Provincial Auditor-and I think are being almost som ewhat unfair to him and his staff in terms of how they can now be playing any role or commen ting on a report that they have not even yet officially tabled to us as a comm ittee or to the Legislature-! would ask the member to withdraw that motion. If not, I would suggest this commi ttee defeat his motion. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I would actual ly speak in fa vour of the motion itself.

The Minister of Finance made reference to previous changes or if we want to enhance the accounta bility of the Public Accounts we have to address other issues. Some of those other issues he has referred to-and he has done it on a couple of occasions-would be the Estima tes. When we started the process of changing the rules inside the Chamber -and we are all fam iliar with what actual ly tra nspired there. Ultima tely you will see that part of those rules that changed it also changed the number of hours that are debated in the Estimates.

In fa ct, technically, we could debate 180, 160 hours only in any given session. A lot depends on how the agenda unfolds during the session because you have a time clock that is put into place. At such and such a time, all the questions are in fa ct going to be placed. If you have only debated for 140 hours, that is all you are going to -

February 11 , 1998 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 debate for. In fa ct, we never did debate 240 hours, for example, in the last session. The reason why I bring it up is the fa ct there were things that were done previously in an attempt to hold government and opposition parties more accountable and get them to behave in a more responsible fa shion. I do not believe that it is necessary for us to be tying any sort of reform ofPublic Accounts to any other body that is inside the Legis lature .

What is important here is that we all-and I believe we all have recognized the need for change because today there is very little, if any, value to having Public Accou nts meetings. We recognize that. Well, let us take the next step. By tying it into the House leaders or tying it into other forms of accountab ility such as concurrence Estimates and whatever it might be, other standing committees, what we are really doing is we are def erring any sort of something real, something tang ible in terms of actions today.

I do not believe that is in Manitobans' best interest, that there is nothing wrong with supporting the member for Crescentwood's motion, that in fa ct if I were to have suggested a motion, the motion would have been more so to have seen a committee strike today. Nothing prevents us. Government is not going to fa ll; opposition is going to create some dialogue with government on looking at how the Public Accounts can be of some value for tomorrow, because if it continues on in the way that it is going today, quite frankly, it is virtually a waste of time.

We have profession al civil servants who are relatively well paid, who sit around a table, who could have been doing something else. There was no value. *( 1 12 0) The member for Crescentwood puts forward excellent questions for the Public Accounts comm ittee. All of those questions could have been answered in correspondence. You need to have that fa ce-to-f ace discussion and it should be expanded. The idea of having, for example, no mi nisters on the Public Accoun ts commi ttee formally, as membership, to the abili ty of commit tees to be able to call witnesses, to having regular meetings.

We only sit 90 days on average in any given session. There are all sorts of opportunities for us to sit in between, intersession, for two hours a day, once a week, or whatever it might be. It does not have to be perceived as a nega tive thing towards government. I would argue that ultimately it is in all of our benefit to give some real strength and to look at the needs and to take some action. We have not seen action. I have heard discussion since 19 89 on the need. Well, I am tired of listening to the discussion.

Quite frankly, I would like to see some sign of real tangible action, even if it is informal, from the minis ter indicating that he would have no problem with a member from the committ ee-you know, Mr. Helwer has been a member of this committee, a member of government for the last nine and a half years. Mr. Sale has expressed interest over the years in Public Accounts. I have had opportunity to atte nd and usually it is to talk about the need for change, I must say.

But to have three indiv iduals from the committee sit between now and the next session and just come up with some sort of a recommendation of a process, it does not prevent the House leaders from getting together and meeting. It at least allows us to do something internally, which is being suggested from the member's motion. I do not think it is appropriate for us to tum a blind eye to something that is very imp ortant and could be much more important and play a very productive role for all Manitobans if in fa ct we at least allowed some sort of a process to take place.

We should not be dependent on other fa ctors that are there. It would be unf ortunate in my opinion. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I want to respond to the perhaps allegation or at least inference of the mini ster that there is something inappropriate about tabling this document. Every single member of this committee had a presentation in which every single one of these points was made in November and December of this year. I do not know whether the min ister had his presentation in December or in January that- Point of Order Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, that is not the docume nt that I was referring to.

The one that I was referring to was the second document, the one that he indicated, and I made it very clear was the report by the Provincial Auditor that the Provincial Auditor has not provided in its final form or part of his report, not the overview document that he shared with all members representing dif ferent parties of the Legisla ture in the presentation. So that is the report that I was sug gesting was inappropriate. I want to make that clear.

18 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11 , 19 98 Mr. Chairperson: There is no point of order. This committee has the authority to accept tabled documents. I do not see any restriction anywhere that you cannot present certain documents,, so I do not think the honourable minis ter has a point of order. So there is nothing to discuss. * * * Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, to continue my remarks, it was specifically to this document that I was referring, that I think it is entirely appropriate that this be put on the table. Was this comm ittee fu nctioning in an appropriate manner?

The gat hering that the Provincial Auditor convened would not have had to be convened by him. It would have been a meeting of the committee called for the purpose of considering its fu nction and direction and requesting the Auditor to provide guidance. In fa ct, the Auditor had to take the initia tive to do that because we cannot get this government to call Public Accounts committee meetings on any kind of regular basis. So I am specif ically saying it is quite appropriate for me to table this today and I reject the minis ter's suggestion that there is something inappropriate about it.

In fa ct, the Provincial Auditor should be commended for sharing with the comm ittee a draft document and askin g for comments specifi cally on the issue that he had spent a great deal of time and trouble to brief us on in detail with a good overhead presentation, good background support, and good discussion. This document does not even touch on all the issues; it simply repeats once again a recommendation of this Auditor and Auditors past that we gt!t onside with the effective functioning of Public Accounts committees as they exist in other jurisdictions.

So I would call for the question, and let us get on with the issues. Mr. Chairperson: Before the question, the honourable minis ter wants to have the floor. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I am just reminding the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sak) of what he said about 10 minu tes ago, that we did agree to refer the total issue to the House leaders. We indica ted that we expected to be meeting early in the next session.

Sub ject to that discussion of House leaders, which he is very optimistic in terms of what might come from that discussion, and sub ject to what comes out of that discussion and agreement that this committee would then be looking at how we move forward to deal with suggestions for changes and reforms, whether it is a subcomm ittee or what the make-up of the subcommittee would be and the various issues that we would have to deal with. That seemed like a reasonable way to move forward.

The member, in previous correspondence to me, has indica ted his party is ready to prepare to discuss the Public Accounts comm ittee and Estima tes process in regard of time allotted to both processes. He and I have shared letters back and forth on the issue. We seem to have agreement that at this stage that was the most appropriate way to move forward. As I say, in light of that agreement, there is no need for this motion at this particular point in time. If the member is not prepared to withdraw it, then at this time it should be defeated. Mr.

Helwer: I think I have atte nded various meetings of the Canadian association of Public Accou nts at dif ferent times. I agree, we do operate some what differently than some other provinces, but in more ways than one.

I believe accountab ili ty is the main tool or main issue for any Public Accounts commit tee, and Manitoba does operate somewhat differently than some other provinces in that the Estima tes process is much more extensive than other provinces, although we do operate some other Public Accounts commit tees and other provinces do operate dif ferently because of different circumstances, because of the way they have a different system of the Estimates process. So I would have to agree with the min ister in this case that I do not think that this motion is necessa ry at this time.

I think his idea of getting the House leaders together as the start to change and make this commit tee more accountable and to change the operation of it somewhat is a proper direction to go. I would have to agree that as a start the House leaders can get together and discuss how we can change or modernize the system of accounta bility. That would be the first step, and I would have to agree that that is the way we should go. If at some time the House leaders want to bring in some members from the committee, that is fine, but I think that is where we should start.

So I would have to say that this motion at this time is not necessa ry, and I -

February 11 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 would agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stef anson). Mr. Chairperson: Any more discussion? * (1 13 0) Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I guess just one final point. An option certai nly is to defer that motion to our next meeting. We seem to have agreement with how to move forward. We have agreed for the House leaders to meet as soon as possible. Our House leader has given that indication and that that meeting should take place, and this meeting could be left on our agenda for the next meeting of Public Accounts.

I think that would be reasonable if the opposition members are concerned about this issue getting bogged down or whatever and not being dealt with. It certainly might well be an appropriate motion at our next meeting, or it might not be neces sary at our next meeting, depending what comes of the discussions of House leaders. So that mig ht be a reasonable compromise for all of us. I think we all recognize there are opportunities for improvements to the Public Accounts committee. We as a government recognize that; obviously members of the opposition recognize that.

We believe very strongly it is part of a comprehensive package, and it should be addressed that way. I have looked at other ju risdictions in terms of other aspects of accountab ility, and we really do have one of the most comprehensive, accountable Estima tes processes. Having said that, it can be improved upon. We have all experienced it. I have walked into this room on many occasions and looked at the limited participa tion and the nature of some of the questions and felt that it could certainly be improved upon. We have all participated.

I would ask members like the members for Inkster or Crescentwood, do they agree that the Estima tes part of the process can be improved upon? To me it is just as imp ortant an accountab ili ty part of the process as the Public Accounts. Public Accounts is an important accounta bility. Today the Estima tes process, in terms of how it fu nctions, is probably even more so or ju st as important, so there is an opportunity to improve that.

When we looked at the changes to the Legislative Assembly the view was to try and do it on a comprehensive basis because the reality is there is always some give and take in terms of how you change processes. That is just a fa ct of lif e if you are going to change a process that there has to be first of all the obje ctive and recognition that something should be done and needs to be done, but ultimately to accomplish something the parties usually give and take in terms of reaching a compromise in terms of what they are all satisfied with. I think that certainly will have to be a part of this process.

There seems to be a wi llin gness to do it. There is a wil lingness on our part to do that, and I think we have agreed to how we will move forward over the next several weeks. So I would suggest that maybe the member for Crescentwood would say he will carry his motion forward to the next meeting of the Public Accounts committee, and we can get on with the rest of the agenda. Mr. Sale: There is a Shakespearean statement about methinks someone doth protest too much. If there is a will to move forward-and I take the minis ter's word that there is-then what is the possible harm in this motion?

If there ever was a broad motion in principle to do something, if there ever was simply a statement of will to move forward with absolutely no substance in the motion, no teeth at all-and yet the minis ter says, my goodness, we should put this off for awhile. Well, the last time we put something off was in May. We did not have a meeting for eight months. This commit tee has heard from four different Auditors, five perhaps, four at least about need for change.

Now on the road to Damascus the minis ter is prepared to say within a month or so we will have another meeting and maybe this would be a good motion to have at that time. Maybe, if the House lea ders can agree and the sun shines and we do not have another flood, we will have another meeting. Well, we are not prepared to pla y that game anymore. We have heard that we are prepared to have more meetings from this minis ter too many times. We have not had those meetings, and we have not improved the functioning of this committee. So no, I am not prepared to withdraw this motion.

This is the softest and most innocuous motion that you could imagine to be put forward and yet it has got all the members opposite concerned that somehow we are making some commitme nts that mi ght be irreversible.

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA February 11 , 19 98 There is not a tooth in this motion, and it is still objectionable to the members opposite. If you have any commitment to reform this committee, pass the motion. Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr. Chainnan, that was an interesting response from th�: member for Crescentwood. When he starts by saying there is no sub stance to this motion, there is no teeth to this motion, one would certainly have to question why he made the motion in the first place.

I guess he is certainly making the case that there is opportunity for improvement in terms of how this comm ittee does fu nction, and with his very own remarks suggesting that, that makes my point that we have agreed to move forward. He indicates he has the support of his party and his House leader. I take him at his word on that. I have had direct discussions with our House leader. Our House leader is prepared to get on with this process. He has indicated he is willi ng to do so as soon as possible.

I have not heard that kind of a comm itment from the member for Crescentwood, but we did a few min utes ago seem to agree that that was a reasonable approach and a reasonable process to let unf old over the course of the next several weeks. If our House leaders do get together, which we are prepared to do, and say, yes, there is an opportunity to improve all of these processes to improve accountability, to improve information and so on, then we should be getting on with it. We are prepared to get on with it.

The Provincial Auditor has made some very important and concise sugge stions and recommendations, so we have a good starting point. Mr. Chairman, it ju st confirms my point. Why is the member even making this motion in light of his comments? He should either withdraw it or at least carry it forward to the next meeting if he is concerned that nothing is going to happen. We are prepared to get on with it. Our House leader will m1!et. I am assuming that his House leader is prepared to do the same thing.

So, aga in, I would suggest it either be withdrawn, deferred, or if he is not prepared to do that, we should at least have the courtesy of waiting for the official report from the Provincial Aud itor, as opposed to tabling a draft report that we shared with members of the comm ittee, that is not a final report, that has not been dealt with in any official way, has not been released publicly as a source of a document to make this motion. As I said earlier, I think that is being unf air to the Provincial Auditor.

I would also welcome his comme nts and input, and probably those are more appropriate when he does table that report. At our subsequent meeting, we will be able to have a fu ller, more informed discussion with that very direct input from the Provincial Au ditor and his staf f. So the member should clearly withdraw his motion. It would be the most appropriate thing, but in the absence of that let us just defeat it and get on with other business. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I will not withdraw the motion, and I will conclude my comments. I will not make any fu rther comments after this particular intervention.

The motion is a motion in principle. The mini ster should recognize that the principle of comm itting ourselves to a road does not have in it the teeth or the specifics of what will be the hills and valleys and bridges of that road. It is simply a comm itment to go down the road. The minis ter has said he believes that is an appropriate thing we ought to do. He is quibbling over the question of whether or not the road direction should be given first by the House leaders or whether this comm ittee should perhaps say we want to set out on this road.

Obviously, by the way our Legis lative Assembly functions, the House leaders will have a role to play in that. We are simply asking that this comm ittee commit itself to that journey in a formal and public way, and the minister seems to think that is inappropriate, it is somehow not needed. Well, if it is not needed then, I guess, it cannot do any harm. Let us do it, because it certai nly is not going to commit us to anything specif ic except a commit ment to the journey. That is what a motion in principle does. That is what this motion is. We should pass it now. *( 1 14 0) Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairman, without prolonging this very much more, the way I understand the substance of the member's motion is he has taken it in part from the draft Provincial Auditor's Report that he tabled, which was provided to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the comm ittee, which does not necessarily mean that all members of this comm ittee have had a chance to see it. It is not a final report. The Provincial Auditor has not comm ented on the report. Obviously, he is not in a position to comment on a report that he has not tabled yet. I am suggesting let us wait for that report, -

February 11 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 particularly when the member is using that as one of the basis. In fa ct, the way I understand it from just reviewing the motion with you, Mr. Chairman, using that draft Provincial Auditor's recommendation as the substance of his recommendation, again, the prudent thing for this comm ittee to do is wait until that official report arrives, let the Provincial Auditor speak to us about his report at that particular point in time, let us have some dialogue with him as well as his officials, as well as amongst ourselves.

Therefore, the motion is clearly premature and I think in some ways unfair to the Provincial Auditor and his staff . Therefore, in light of the commit ments we have all made, recognizing the need to get on with dealing with this issue, let us do that. And in the absence of the member for Crescentwood withdrawing this motion, then I think until we have a final report from the Provincial Auditor, this motion should be defeated at this particular point in time. Mr. Chairperson: On a matter of procedure. The motion is now on the floor of this committee.

It cannot be withdrawn unless the mover withdraws it himself , and even if he does want to withdraw it, if the committee does not want it to be withdrawn, he has to ask the permission of the committee. It is not the property of the committee being acknowledged by the Chair. After this motion is disposed of one way or another, the member for Inkster said he wants to move another motion. Then once the floor is clear, he can move his motion. There is nothing that prevents any member of this committee from moving any motion as long as it is in writing. Voice Vote Mr.

Chairperson: The question before the committee is the motion moved by Mr. Sale, seconded by Mr. Malowa y, that this committee take steps to transform itself into a more effective force in government accounta bility. Shall the motion pass? All those in fa vour of the motion, please respond by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please respond by saying nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: The Nays seem to have it in terms of number but not in terms of intensity. [interje ction] Well, I am using both my ears and my eyes. Formal Vote Mr. Sale: Mr.

Chairman, could we have a recorded vote, please? Mr. Cha irperson: There is a request for a recorded vote. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 3, Nays 5. Mr. Chairperson: The motion is lost. *** Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I have a second motion that I would like to move and then speak to. I move that this commi ttee adopt the procedure of meeting within 60 days of the receipt of Volumes of Public Accounts and within 60 days of the receipt of any report of the Provincial Auditor. Mr. Chairpers on: It is in writing. Motion presented. Mr. Chairperson : Any discussion on the motion? Mr.

Sale: Mr. Chairperson, in putting forward this motion, I simply go to the precedent set by the committee in agreeing to agendas . This is a very minor but important move on the part of the committee which would ensure that we did not get behind as we have in every year since I have been an MLA. I am not sure about previous history, but I think that we have been behind in the past on many occasions as well. This is clearly a procedural decision. It is easily acco mplisha ble. Six ty days gives lots of time for scrutiny.

It certainly gives time to fit members' schedules to allow for meeti ngs that have been well prepared for and, coupled with the agreement that our

22 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11, 1998 discussion would be guided by an agenda, I think this would go a long way towards bringing orderly ann ual Estima tes processes into line with what happens in some other jurisdictions. I would say that this is also a min imal agreement. If the minis ter still wished to avoid having more regular meetings, he could accomplish that goal by simply having one meeting within 60 days of receipt of Volumes 1 to 4 and not having any more. He would still have to, by my motion, allow the:re to be meetings within 60 days of each report of the Provincial Auditor.

Sometimes the Provincial Auditor has only two volumes in a given year; sometimes he has three or four, or she has three or four. I remember two years ago, I believe there were a total of six different volumes of Provincial Auditor. So in that year we would be meeting more frequently. This seems to me to be the kind of simple, cle ar, reasonable procedure that any comm ittee charged with the examination of financial reports would want to take . I remind all members that, for example, companies must have meetings within a certain period of the filing of their annual returns.

All of us have belonged to organiza tions that must have their annual meeting within some certain period of the year-end. In school boards, it is 90 days. They must deal with the audited statements within 90 days of their receipt. This is a common practice in the business world that the minister is fa miliar with and supportive of in my last encounters with him in which companies are required to have annual meetings within a certain tim(! of receipt of their annual sta tements.

They are not allowed to simply not do that just because it is not convenient or because the sun is not shining or for some other reason; they have to do it. There are audit committees in every ma jor corporation and in most small corporations. Au dit committees are made up of the board of directors 1md selected other of ficers, but they certainly are made up of a boa rd of directors, and we mig ht, if the mini ster likes the analogy, think of ourselves as the director of a large corporation called Manitoba Inc.

There is nothing onerous about the requirement of this motion, nor is it a ma jor change in terms of what any well-functioning commit tee mi ght do. So I commend the motion.

I think if the government wishes to show good will in regard to the agreement, that we should evolve this comm ittee into a more useful function, a more modem role, then it will agree to this motion, and if it wants to continue to obfuscate and avoid accountab ili ty and not have meetings that are timely, so that more than a year after the end of a fiscal period we are still considering the records of that fiscal period, then it will defeat the motion.

I think this will be a usef ul test as to whether the min ister seriously thinks we should get on with reform or whether that is posturing, which I hope it is not, and I hope he will instruct his collea gues to support this motion. *

(1150) Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, just before I respond. The member for Crescentwood may have clarified this in his comments-if he did, I missed it-where he refers to 60 days of the receipt of Volumes 1 to 4. Now he is aware that they do not necessarily all come out at the same time, so is he suggesting 60 days after receipt of each individual report a committee meeting be called or 60 after the last report is tabled? Mr. Cha irperson: The question has been posed. Mr. Sale: Mr.

Chairperson, thankf ully, partly due to the ef forts of the minis ter and partly due to the eff orts of the Provincial Auditor, we are at the point where most of these volumes come on a predictable basis. The dates for them have become pretty stable. I was moving a very gentle motion. My intent was simply to say, by the time we have Volumes 1 to 4, let the clock start, and 60 days later we must have had a meeting. So I am not suggesting that we meet for Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 and Volume 4 within 60 days of each.

I think the practice has been to table some of them together, and Volume 4 often has followed somewhat late r. Sometimes in the past, Volume 3 has followed later, but in recent years it has been much more on a predictable kind of basis. I think that has been an imp rovement. I have recorded that im provement in previous committees. My intention was Volumes 1 to 4, all ha ving been received, the clock starts. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the motion, I am glad that the member is picking up on one of the

February 11 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 recommendations of the Provincial Auditor in his overview to us about being nonpartisan when he talks about posturing and avo iding accounta bility and so on. I would suggest, if he is looking for somebody who is posturing, he need look no further than in a mirror and he would get the answer.

When you look at this recommendation in light of the lengthy discussion we have just had on improvements to accounta bility, the need to improve and change how the Public Accounts comm ittee functions and the fa ct that we are commi tted, I have indicated very clearly, which I have not heard from the member for Crescentwood, our House leader is prepared to meet as soon as possible to start that process of looking at the total package of acco untab ility to the Legislature in terms of Estimates, committees, Public Accounts committee and so on.

But again, at this particular point in time, that would be the most prudent approach to take . Until that process at least begins and starts to unfold, I believe that this motion, once again, should preferably be withdrawn through una nimous consent in the absence of the member for Crescentwood's will ingness to do that. Again, this motion at this particular point in time should be defeate d. Mr. Chairp erson: Any other discussion. Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, just very quickly, Mr. Chairperson.

I note that having reports in a timely fa shion come before comm ittee has been somewhat of a problem in past years, and as I interpret this particular motion, it is atte mpting to addre ss that parti cular issue. It is not necessarily to limit any sort of changes in the future for the Public Accounts that might address the issue in a more specific and detai led way in the future, hopefully in the very near future, much like we had the changes for the agenda.

I think that when the reports are tab led that there is a sense of need to have it come before commi ttee in a timely fa shion, and that is what I see this motion doing. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, in presumably concluding debate on this, I understand the minis ter's direction to his caucus is to defeat the motion, which I regret. It is very interesting. The government is a government that has championed business, championed the private sector. Private sector accounta bilities require annual me etings to consider annual reports and financial statements.

They require that they be signed off within a certain period of time. Now, this is a very big corpora tion-the government likes to talk about it that way; I do not like it, because I do not believe that is what government is-but this government talks about doing its business efficiently, and yet here is one of the most fundamental business rules. Receive and report on the annual statements, examine them with the shareholders present, let people ask questions. By law that is a right in the corporate world.

Sometimes those mee tings are long and sometimes they are very short and that is the way it is, but the meetings have to be held. Now this is not something that would require the Legislature to have to think long and hard about because the Legislature already has. It passed

an act to regulate businesses. It has many other acts that regulate public sector organiza tions, like school divisions, that set forth what has to happen with public statements of the operation of those divisions, but somehow that kind of direction is not good for the source of the direction, the Legislature of this province. Somehow it is really good to have public corporations have to report publicly with audited statements within a certain time frame but it is really bad to have that happen for those who make the laws, the government of the day. I do not understand that, Mr.

Chairperson, parti cularly from a pro-business government that believes, it says, in that kind oftra nsparency in the private sector but it does not apparently believe in it in the public sector. What would be lost by passing this motion? What would be lost? We would have to have a couple more meetings than we have now. I do not think that is a loss. We would comply, in at least a minor sense, with the way the priva te sector is required to do business around acco untab ility for financial opera tions. I do not see that as a loss.

We would not have the situation where we are two and three years behind in considering public accoun ts. I do not see the down side of that quite fran kly. So what would be lost by agre eing to have regular meetings within a certain time frame of the receipt of audited sta tements and Public Accounts? What could possibly be lost by that? Now the minister has made much of his comm itment to get this process of reform underway . He is talking about quick meetings of the House leaders, an early

24 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11 , 19 98 meeting in the new session, and I hope that indeed will happen. But what would be lost by this commit tee instructing itself to meet within a certain time frame of the receipt of accounts? What accountab ility would be damaged or diminis hed? How would the public of Manitoba be badly served by a commitment to actually talk about the Public Accounts of Manitoba within a reasonable time frame of their receipt? How would our jobs as MLAs be made somehow less ef f ective by doing that?

I fa il to see how that could be the case and yet this committee appears willing to say no, we should not do that. We should have a mee:ting of the House lea ders and then maybe we should have a meeting of the committee and then we should have a process that will last until we are no longer government and then we would like these changes to take place. Well, no, we are not going to do it that way.

Either we are going to make progress while this government is still government, for whatever short period of time that is, or we are not going to make progre:ss, but we are not any longer simply going to def er to some endless referral discussions that do not move our process forward one iota when there are clear things we could do by agreement that would not fu ndamentally require the Legis lature 's act ion that are well within the mandate of most comm ittees to make decisions about meeting times and meeting subj ects and, particularly in this case, about the receipt and scrutiny of audited stat ements.

You on the opposite side and some of us on this side have all had something to do with the business world. We would be somewha t concerned if a compa ny in which we had any involvement did not meet to consider its annual statements until 12 or 18 or 24 months after the fiscal period to which those statements pertained. I do not think we would have much confidence in the management of that company. But that is apparently what we are going to continue to do by defeating this motion. I do not understand that, because it does not seem to me that it enhances our role as legisla tors in the eyes of the public.

I do not see how it adva nces the Conservative government's status as a well-ma naged government, which it certainly likes to refer to. It seems to me that it just sticks us in old procedures that other provinces have long since given up on, that the business world would not tolerate:, and Manitobans should not tolerate either. But it appears to be the will of this government to do that. Mr. Chai rperson: One point of clarification. I just state the fa cts. Right now, in the rules conventionally followed by this commit tee, the committee cannot call its own meeting.

Therefore, there is some need to amend this motion by substituting "recommend" for "adopt" because, if the committee itself cannot call its own meeting, how can it prescribe the time for a meeting without having that power traditional ly, cumulatively? So we ju st recommend if the mover would agree to this. An Honourable Member: Maybe the Chairman should rule it out of order. Mr. Chai rperson: I cannot amend the motion. I am the Chair. I am in a position of impartiality. An Honourable Member: You could rule it out of order. Just rule it out of order. I think that would be proper procedure. * (1 200) Mr. Sale: Mr.

Chairperson, I would ask for guidance from you and from the Clerk. Was there a motion recommending the comm ittee adopt the procedure of agendas when that change took place, or did the comm ittee make that change itself? I believe the minis ter has already answered this question, but perhaps we should reflect on that before we accept your ruling in regard to this issue, because we have already a precedent of a procedure. I do not believe that that precedent had the term "recommend" in it.

I do not believe that any other body was required to approve that action on the part of the committee, so I would like some clarification on that issue. Mr. Chai rperson: Okay. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, in light of that comment and the confusion I was going to suggest that this motion at a minimum be deferred to our next meeting. I think that concern that you have raised has ju st added to that. I say that for a couple of reasons.

First of all, of course, the process we currently follow, whether it is right or wrong, is the same process that has been in place for many years under various governments in Manitoba but, probably more importantly, the draft guidelines, CCPAC guidelines -

February 11 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) tabled here today, under the steering committee one of the recommendations, it said it recommends that the number and timing of meetings and hearings be addressed.

So again, if there is the will ingness, and I still have not heard from the member for Crescentwood the will ingness to have his House leader get on with this comprehensive process, if there is the willin gness to get on with it, at our next meeting we will know very clearly whether or not we are moving down the path of the comprehensive review to the Public Accounts comm ittee, which includes the number and timings of meetings and hearings, which can be significa ntly dif ferent in terms of what we are currently doing, in terms of how they are scheduled, when they are scheduled, and so on.

So I think the prudent and appropriate response would be to wait for that process to our next meeting and, therefore, at a minimum it seems this motion first of all is out of order, but if not I would certainly encourage that it be deferred to the next meeting of this comm ittee. At that point in time we will know very clearly whether or not there is agreement to move forward on a comprehensive basis or, as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) skeptically suggests, whether or not this will all break down because there is not a willin gness to deal with things on a comprehensive basis.

We will know that, I would think, in very short order over the next several weeks. This issue and this motion is one ofthe many important issues in the draft CCPAC guidelines that we all have before us here today, Mr. Chairman. So, agai n, the member referred to posturing, and so on, and I suggested that he look in the mirror and I would encourage him to do it a second time, because we do believe that there are opportunities to enhance accounta bility.

In many respects, we have an extremely accountable system here in Manitoba when it comes to our Estimates process, our various committee meetings, our Question Period in the Legisla ture, and so on. We are saying there is an opportunity to improve one aspect of accounta bi lity here in Public Accounts committee, but in terms of doing it in a responsible, prudent, long-term fas hion, let us do it on a comprehensive basis. We are prepared to do that. I have the commitment from our party and our House leader to get on with it. I would like to hear the same commitment from the member for Crescentwood (Mr.

Sale) if he would stop his posturing and get on with the rest of the agenda, Mr. Chairman. But let us either have it withdrawn because it is out of order or deferred to the next meeting. Mr. Chairperson: Can the Chair suggest a recess of a few minutes so we can clarify whether the motion is in order or not? Because the clerks would like to research that. [agreed] The committee recessed at 12:05 p.m. After Recess The committee resumed at 12:16 p.m. Mr. Chairperson: Will the meeting please resume order.

As I have explained before, because this commi ttee lacks the auth ority to call its own meeting, this will not be consistent with that kind of situation. This motion, in its present form, needs to be amended or else it will be out of order. For the last time, may I request unanimous consent of this committee to change that word "adopt" to "recommend"? Does the comm ittee give unanimous consent to change and amend this motion on the floor? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Chairperson: Unanimous consent has not been granted.

Therefore, I rule that this motion, because of form, is out of order. However, it does not preclude another motion being put in its proper form. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, may I have the motion to strike the word and replace it, please? What is the word that is required? Recommend. So moved. May I just speak briefly to the motion? My understanding of recommending to ourselves in such a fa shion, because we do not report the minutes of

26 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA February 11 , 19 98 this meeting to anybody else at this point, we simply recommend, I guess in this case we are recommending to the Finance min ister that he use his current role as the caller of meetings to follow the intent of the motion, which is to call meetings within the periods prescribed. So clearly he can do this, and I think that if he is serious about the commitment of his government to move in a reform manner in this comm ittee- Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The member has to be recognized before he speaks.

I have first to accept the motion, put it on the floor and then I will recognize the member, Mr. Sale. So the motion has been put now in its proper form, that this commit tt!e recommend the procedure of meeting within 60 days of the receipt of Volumes 1 to 4 of Public Accounts and within 60 days of the receipt of any report from the Provincial Auditor. Discussions. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, thank you.

My understanding of the intention of this motion would now seem to be with the required change that you required to essentially instruct the Fina nce minis ter to use his role as the caller of meetings, not the convenor because you are the convenor, but the authority for the calling of meetings, to use that authority in the way in which the motion directs and that by supporting this motion the comm ittee members will! be requesting the Finance minis ter to use his authority 1to call meetings, to do so in conformity with the intent of the motion which I think we have already debated and we should vote on. Mr.

Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, agai n, being somewhat repetitive- well, first of all, I could indicate that we have a formal agenda although I recognizt! there was a fa irly short time frame, but we have now had a couple of motions and so on which have not in any way been provided as part of the agenda submitted, but recognizing that we have said all along that we have agenda categories or areas and we will obviously have flexibility and accepting motions is certainly a key part of that. * (1 220) I recognize that but I have indicated there appears to be a will ingness to look at reforming how this committee functions.

One of the key recommendations in the guideline document deals with the meetings, the numbers of meetings and so on, and I am not suggesting that there is not some merit to looking at -if we cannot make progress on a comprehensive basis that there is not some merit to looking at then some other ad ju stments, whether it be how we

schedule meetings or whatever, but I think we should let the next several weeks unf old and see if we are going down a path of comprehensive reform. We certainly are prepared to look at these kinds of things related to timing of commit tees as they relate to the tabling of documents and so on.

But I think we should at least allow these next few weeks to see if there is this will ingness, which I sense there is, but again, the member for Crescentwood has not cl early indica ted that his House leader is prepared to meet and sit down ASAP with our House leader and others, that we are prepared to move on looking at a comprehensive reform. So we should at least allow these next few weeks to unf old with that process and, therefore, I would suggest that this motion should be deferred to our next committee meeting and dealt with at that time. Mr. Cha irperson: Mr. Helwer indicated he wants to speak. Mr.

Helwer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would have to agree that I think we should delay this until the next meeting. First of all, I think the Minis ter of Fina nce, this min ister, and also the former minis ter have always been prepared to meet as soon as possible after the reports come out. I think by putting a certain time limit on it would restrict the flexibili ty of the government or of the mi nister. First of all, that time limit could be right in the middle of Estimates, when we would be dealing with Estimates.

We do not know what particular department we could be dealing with at that particular time, so I do not think that putting a certain time limit on it would be advanta geous in any way making this government or any government more accountable. As I have said, we have always, with a degree of co operation, tried to bring these issues to a meeting as soon as possible. Unfortunate ly, sometimes it has been longer than others.

I think given what the minis ter has said that we should give the House leaders the opportunity to meet and try to come to some agreement as to how we could possibly improve the operation of the Public Accounts committee, there are many fac tors -

February 11 , 19 98 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 to be considered in this, the whole accountab ility issue. So I think this should be def erred until the next meeting, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson: Do I have a motion? Mr. Helwer: Mr. Chairman, would a motion be in order at this time to ta ble this motion until the next meeting? Mr. Chairperson: I need a copy of the motion in writing according to our procedures. A point of order is being raised. Point of Order Mr. Sale: A point of order, Mr. Chairperson.

I would like some clarification on my memory of the rules under whic h we fun ction, whether a motion to table is the same as a motion to postpone to a definite time. I am not clear about whether that distinction exists in our rules or not. If the member wants to table a motion, I think that he can do so, but I do not know that it is in order to table it to a definite time. My memory is that a motion to table to a definite time is debatable and a motion to table is not, but I am asking for cla rification. Mr. Chairperson: There is a subsidia ry motion here

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-pa1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf pa1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1602cea88ee37df8af9f277fd8bcb1070af461c2

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).