2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9:00 a.m. Douglas Fir Committee Room Parliament Buildings, Victoria

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON 
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2004

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 2347 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2004

           The committee met at 9:07 a.m.

           [B. Belsey in the chair.]

           B. Belsey (Chair): Good morning, members. If we can have everybody take their seat, we'll get this 9 o'clock meeting started.

           You should have in front of you the draft agenda as well as the information that was either sent to you by e-mail or delivered to you — I'm not sure — this morning. If there's anybody that is short, we have extra copies up here.

           With the agenda we'll start with the review of the papers that Josie has been working on, and we'll go in camera. I seek a motion to go in camera.

           Motion approved.

           The committee continued in camera from 9:08 a.m. to 11:35 a.m.

           [B. Belsey in the chair.]

           B. Belsey (Chair): We'll just take a few minutes' break here while we get Mr. Oliver in.

           The committee recessed from 11:35 a.m. to 11:39 a.m.

           [B. Belsey in the chair.]

           B. Belsey (Chair): Okay. If we can have the members take their seats, we will get started with this open public session.

           I would like to point out to the members that Patty Sahota, who is not here right now, may be phoning in. When she does, we'll be getting a message from next door as to where we actually will call. At that time we'll pause the meeting until we get her connected up.

           It's a pleasure to welcome our conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Oliver. The floor is yours, sir.

[1140]

Office of the
Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner

           H. Oliver: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

           As usual, I have really very little to tell you. Somebody was talking to me about a business plan, and I said: "What business plan do you really expect from a one-man operation that's going 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, with a staff of 1.6 FTEs?" I've brought 0.6 of my FTEs with me in the person of Betsi Curdie.

           My job, as always, is somewhat akin to that of the chief of a one-man fire department. I have nothing to do at all as long as people won't throw lighted cigarettes in the wastepaper basket. I'm very pleased to say that during the past year, we have had no scandals, no major problems, no serious conflicts, no significant breaches of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act — all of which I attribute to the understanding which members have brought to this aspect of their duties.

           I have a constant flow of members of the House who either come to see me or telephone me and discuss in advance things they might be considering or wishing to do, so nothing untoward has really happened. However, this doesn't happen automatically. We're beavering away all the time doing the considerable paperwork which is involved, conducting our statutory interviews. I think I've completed all but one. We're determined to finish them by tomorrow. I'm seeing the last member at the cabinet offices in Vancouver, ten minutes after the helijet lands.

           The result of all this cooperation may be seen by looking at our budget figures and actual expenditure. I had copies of these prepared for you but noted a clerical error just before coming in, so I'm having this retyped. They will be supplied to you very shortly. Our budget for salaries and benefits is $205,000 for the fiscal year. We've actually spent $113,000. Projecting expenditures for the balance of the fiscal year, we end up with a projected free balance of $11,200.

[1145]

           Our operating costs are budgeted at $77,000; actual expenditure, $25,000. Again, projecting forward to the end of the fiscal year, we anticipate a free balance of $20,300. We have a total budget for other expenditures, such as professional fees, of $10,000, of which we have spent nothing. We project nothing and hope to end up with a $10,000 surplus there. I do not find it necessary to spend taxpayers' money on having routine legal opinions done. Those are done in-house by myself. All of this means that of a total budget of $292,000, we are projecting $41,605 under budget by the end of the fiscal year.

           Beware, Mr. Chairman, of projections. We've all spent the past 12 hours or so watching projections on our television sets coming from across the line. They assume all sorts of things. I assume that we're going to have no major misconduct complaints. I assume that it will not be necessary to conduct any formal inquiries. These figures are based on those assumptions. They are what lawyers call rebuttable assumptions.

           If I am correct, then we should end the year having spent approximately $251,000 on our operation. It may be of interest to members to note that Alberta has spent $315,000 and Ontario $552,600 over the past year. Now, these figures may be of some interest. You must not assume that the functions of the commissioners in other provinces are entirely identical to mine, but it gives one some idea of what different provinces are spending on ethics, call it, or integrity or conflict prevention. We're running as inexpensive a show as we possibly can.

           We will continue to do that as long as we're allowed to do that. You will appreciate that offices like mine are entirely demand-driven. If we can continue doing our routine work, this is a fair indication of what it costs for the year. I think that members may feel that by and large it's good value for the money. If, on the other hand, we are faced with any major crisis, then

[ Page 2348 ]

obviously, that's something which will have to be paid for.

[1150]

           It is with some regret that I've become aware of the fact that there will be an election in May of next year and that we're going to lose many of the most able and most experienced members of the House on both sides. I anticipate a new grade 1 intake into my school, some of whom will have to learn the lessons which members have so ably learned during the past parliament. I am told that there are those who will be running who have been here before and who will bring with them, of course, if elected, their own experience and understanding of the obligations of members under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

           Now, that, in short, is all I have to communicate to you, Mr. Chairman. I had hoped that our annual report would be in your hands by today. The fact that it is not you may blame on me. It is at the printer's. When I got samples of the paper, I found that all the paper was made in the United States. I sent word saying I would like my annual report printed on Canadian paper — preferably British Columbia paper. It turns out that there is only one paper manufacturer in the country able to supply this — at substantially greater cost than the Queen's Printer will be paying for the American paper. I won't say it is B.C. Ferries all over again. This is a much smaller problem. But the fact that the reports won't be in your hands for another week or so must be placed on my shoulders and my ill-informed attempts to exercise a little paper patriotism.

           Now, Mr. Chairman, are there any questions which members might wish me to respond to?

           B. Belsey (Chair): Mr. Oliver, thank you very much. Those Americans know what their paper is worth.

           I do see a number of questions from the members, so I'll start with Jeff Bray.

           J. Bray: Thank you very much, Mr. Oliver. Just for clarification because your report is not in front of us, can we assume that your budget proposal for the next fiscal year mirrors the one in the current fiscal year?

           H. Oliver: Yes, it does. All being well, I don't need any more money. I look forward to the day when I may be able to appear before this committee and ask for a reduction in my budget. I'm told that this would be a revolutionary move which would not be welcomed at all by a whole variety of people. For the moment, we are adequately provided for by the existing budget.

           M. Hunter: I did want to note in a rather lighter vein in terms of patriotism that the cookies Mr. Oliver serves during our annual interview are British cookies, and I think he will agree they're probably good cookies.

           J. MacPhail: Mr. Oliver, you and I have had a brief chat about perhaps making some recommendations for the incoming class of 2005 on submission changes, and I'm just wondering whether that is still on the agenda.

[1155]

           H. Oliver: I've offered the party leaders the opportunity, if desired, for any prospective member to come and talk to me about their obligations, as far as financial disclosure goes.

           Last time around, four years ago, a number of people came to see me in that connection. I think it may be a useful thing. I know that I've just written a congratulatory letter to the successful member in the Surrey by-election, and attached to my congratulations were about 40 pages of forms for him to fill in.

           I think it's of advantage if prospective candidates know that there are financial disclosure obligations. I'm sure they've been told that by their party leaders or those who recruit them. They may be told it in even greater detail if they come and talk to me.

           B. Belsey (Chair): You may find it prudent if you attached those when they became nominees. It may change their whole point of view of getting into politics.

           Any further questions?

           Mr. Oliver, we look forward to receiving the paperwork that you've promised us, on Canadian paper — British Columbia paper, I might add. I want to thank you very much for presenting today.

           H. Oliver: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

           B. Belsey (Chair): We'll recess for a few minutes here to allow the members to grab something to take back to their places. Then we'll start in with the police complaint commissioner. Thank you.

           The committee recessed from 11:57 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.

           [B. Belsey in the chair.]

           B. Belsey (Chair): All right. I'd like to call this meeting back to order. We'll remain in the open, public session.

           I would like to just point out that I have a soccer team that has come down here from the Queen Charlotte Islands that is going to tour the building today. They'll be here about 1 o'clock, and they are going to come into the session and just observe. So when you see 19 kids coming through here, they're not after what's left on that table over there; they will be here to listen to the proceedings.

           I'd like to welcome the police complaint commissioner, Mr. Ryneveld. It's a pleasure. The floor is yours, sir.

Office of the
Police Complaint Commissioner

           D. Ryneveld: Thank you, Mr. Chair and hon. members, for giving me the opportunity again to explain some of the things we've been doing over the past year and some of what my learned friend the former Justice Oliver called rebuttable presumption.

[ Page 2349 ]

           Much of what we did last year was based on the assumption that certain things would happen, and the rebuttable presumption has come up that things have changed. The moment I found out that there were going to be some changes, I thought it was incumbent on me to let this committee know as soon as possible.

           Hopefully, you will all have received first of all…. I have provided again copies of my annual report, which I believe was provided to you in late March or early April. I'm bringing copies again today for ease of reference. Also in July, during the summer recess, I appreciated that I needed to advise this committee of some very important things that had happened and give my proposal as to what I was going to do about it before I spent the money. I wrote the letter in July, and I believe the Clerk's office did provide each of you with a copy.

           I subsequently met with the former chair and the deputy chair of this committee in late August and provided a letter dated September 3 where I outlined my proposal based on that discussion. I want to follow up on that now in some detail, if I may. That is the background. This isn't new. You have been told about it in July and again in August and September, and this is the opportunity that each of you have to ask any questions about what I did and why I did it.

           What I have today is…. Today's submission is consistent with the position I took last November respecting the current year's budget. At that time, you'll recall I suggested that my budget needed to be in two steps. There needed to be an operational budget, and an operational budget could be planned for. Decisions have to be made on the basis of available funds and the prioritization of needs in order to make informed spending decisions. Unfortunately, however, the only legislated remedy for a difference of opinion between my office and that of the police department with respect to a complaint is for me to call a public hearing. In other words, what I'm saying is that if I disagree, we have to turn on the switch full bright and go to a public hearing, and there is no rheostat whereby you have a menu of other options. It's either a public hearing or it's approved.

[1220]

           Public hearings are necessary in certain cases where the public interest so requires at the discretion of the police complaint commissioner. Unfortunately, they're also expensive, both in monetary terms and human resource terms, which is another factor for the police complaint commissioner to take into consideration in determining the broader concept of what is in the public interest. As I indicated before, the commissioner cannot predict how often a public hearing must be called, nor can he or she predict how long it will take or how expensive it will be. For that reason, it is imperative, in my respectful submission, that the discretion of the commissioner not be fettered nor the independence compromised by the lack of funding to call a public hearing where the public interest so dictates.

           In my written submission, I pointed out how I've made this argument before and that the committee, as it then was, indicated in June of 2003:

           "The committee understands how critical it is to maintain the independence and integrity of the office of the police complaint commissioner and, in particular, the commissioner's autonomy to call and conduct a public hearing, unfettered by budgetary concerns. We recognize this as an unforeseen expense incurred to fulfil a statutory duty and are receptive to hearing from the police complaint commissioner, should the need arise."

As you'll see later, that need has arisen.

           If I can then deal with the first part of that submission, which is the administrative budget as opposed to the public hearing budget…. Of course, the administrative budget is things like salaries and benefits and office space and supplies and matters of that nature — things you can kind of predict and, to a certain degree, control. The second part deals with the costs of the public hearings, and that one includes such things as salary, travel and accommodation for the adjudicator; equipment rentals such as TV screens and VCRs; the cost of the registrar, who is independent; transcripts of proceedings; travel and accommodation for counsel; and certain additional legal costs. Those amounts vary, of course, with the quantity, complexity and duration of the public hearings.

           Also, since I have no decision in who is selected by the Associate Chief Justice, I cannot, for example, control whether a retired judge from the interior is assigned to be the adjudicator in, of course, the hearing held in Vancouver. These are all matters which are outside of my discretion but perfectly proper, because I don't select the adjudicator. I have the Associate Chief Justice select, at completely arm's length, and I appoint. I'm just saying that there are things that happen to us that we have no control over. That's the public hearing budget.

           Just like last year, I told you that at a bare minimum, with respect to my operational requirement, the office needed a minimum budget of $985,000 in order to be able to perform the basic priorities of exercising the role of civilian oversight of the police. You agreed, and you recommended that amount. Unfortunately, those were bare minimum requirements, provided nothing went wrong. The budget simply did not allow for any unforeseen eventualities, what the conflict commissioner referred to as rebuttable presumptions.

           What I could not have predicted is that one of my staff would go on an extended sick leave, requiring me to backfill the position during his recovery period. I am happy to say that he is now back, but we still have a transition period, to the end of December. Nor could I anticipate the potential that there could be legislation in place affecting the judicial salaries and that that would result in an overrun in my administrative budget for this year. I will return to those issues in some detail in a moment. Those were two unforeseen things totally outside of my control.

           Last year I talked to you about a distinction needing to be made between what our present resources permit us to do and what the legislation requires us to do. I said that if we ever are going to do our entire mandate, we need additional resources. I told you last

[ Page 2350 ]

year what I could do with the $985,000, and I also made a proposal to you that if you gave us additional funds, how I would use those additional funds. I'm coming to you again today and saying that if you provide me with those additional funds, we will enhance our service. Let me just talk about that for a moment.

[1225]

           The review committee, in August of 2002, in their report…. That was the select committee that reviewed the office of the police complaint commissioner. Don't forget that this was built into the legislation when it came in, in 1998. This was brand new legislation, and you built right into it a review process after three years to see how it's working and what amendments or tweaking need to be done in order to make it a better act.

           Well, some of the recommendations that the select committee — some of those members are here today — said were that the police complaint commissioner should assist in developing training materials on the complaint process for use by those agencies responsible for police training. They recommended that the Solicitor General of British Columbia undertake to harmonize the complaint process among all police services in the province; that the police complaint commissioner must develop and provide public education and outreach programs regarding the complaint process and the mandate of the office of the police complaint commissioner; that such education and outreach initiatives acknowledge and address the needs of diverse communities including marginalized groups; and finally, that the police complaint commissioner be mandated to encourage informal resolution and mediation.

           I'm very strong on those points, but with my present budget and present resources, I haven't been able to do that. I've outlined in my paper to you some of the other recommendations of part 9 of the Police Act — paraphrased, we are to establish procedures for mediation services; we're to engage in research and conduct independent investigations. All of these current duties and recommended future, very worthwhile objectives have a cost associated with them.

           To be frank, $985,000 doesn't allow me to implement any of them. Most of the costs involved would be either for salaries of permanent staff or for contracted services. I've already made inquiries with respect to establishing mediated services for certain police complaints, and most police departments are eager and willing to participate. The problem is that there is no budget available to hire mediators.

           Similarly, I'm anxious to provide training to police respecting the police complaint process. I would like to be able to provide personnel to assist in the training program at the Justice Institute. In other words, have the young officers…. We know that presently there is a real problem across the province in all forces, including the RCMP, in getting enough officers to replace the number of people who have retired.

           We have an influx of new officers who take training at the Justice Institute. I attend or a member of my office attends the graduating classes, and there are quite a few of them. We think that rather than just appear on the podium to say congratulations, we should be involved in that training process to let them know what the Police Act process is about and demystify it and give them an idea of what is expected of them that we can provide, but again, we don't have the resources for training.

           Outreach to these diverse communities and marginalized groups is very important and long overdue. Again, our office doesn't have the human resources to tackle the task, nor do we have an adequate budget that enables us to hire contracted services to perform it.

           Now turn with me, if you would, please, to page 6 of my submission under the heading, "Budget Proposal." Here is the encapsulated request. In essence, I'm repeating my proposal that I recommended last, year with minor modifications.

           I am again asking that you provide this office with requisite funding to provide some of the enhanced service, which is presently a statutory requirement and meets with the recommendations of the review committee. I would propose to hire one additional investigative analyst in the Vancouver office. That additional position would enable our staff to further multi-task and each contribute to the training and outreach programs.

           You will see that the operational budget with enhanced staffing would amount to $1.159 million. I'm respectfully requesting a designated public hearing and court cost fund in the amount of $100,000. It's understood that if those funds are not required, they will be returned. They will not be used for operational purposes. Similarly, if the unforeseen legal and public hearing costs exceed $100,000, I will have to come before you to justify why we need to access the contingency fund.

[1230]

           The combined funding request for both the administrative budget and the public hearing and legal costs budget is $1.259 million. Let's just get to the analysis of this. I've already mentioned to you that last July I sent this committee a letter indicating that unforeseen circumstances had arisen that necessitated me advising you that I needed to spend moneys not provided for in the budget. Part of that letter is restated as follows. I think it's probably important that I put on the record what those reasons were, so if you'll bear with me, I'll read them.

           "As you are aware, we have been trying to do the work of the office with a bare-minimum staff. The office employs one lawyer, three investigative analysts and only two support staff, for a total complement of six employees. Everyone, myself included, has been requested to multi-task in order to get everything done with minimum staff. For example, we save money by having our staff produce our own annual report, without outside assistance. Unfortunately, that only works when everyone is available. When staff take holidays" — apparently they want to do that — "or become ill, it throws the formula into disarray. In essence, we're treading water with the water level above the lips but just below the nose. It doesn't take much of a wave to cause serious problems.

           "What has caused my present dilemma is that our senior investigative analyst in Vancouver has unfortunately had to take extended medical leave. The

[ Page 2351 ]

precise nature of the medical problem has not been disclosed. However, it's likely brought on in part by work-related stress. At the moment, it appears that he may be on short-term illness, STIIP, for three to six months. It could be even longer.

           "Consequently, I've had to hire a temporary replacement investigative analyst. I was very fortunate to find a retired RCMP staff sergeant who is experienced in conducting internal investigations, who resides in the lower mainland and who was able to start work immediately. Allowing for the hiring process and a training period, we were able to reduce the impact of this unexpected setback in terms of timely handling of files. What I am unable to do anything about, however, is the financial cost to the office that this development entails.

           "As you are undoubtedly aware, we must continue to pay 75 percent of our analyst's salary while he is ill. His benefits also continue. At the same time, we've had to hire a temporary investigative analyst for the position he's backfilling. Simply put, it was an administrative necessity but one I couldn't afford within my present budget of $985,000. I need additional funds to pay for the replacement salary.

           "Of concern to me as a responsible administrator, as well, is the fact that if overwork has contributed to one of my employees taking medical leave, then I must re-evaluate as to whether the workload is too great for our too few staff members. Within my present budget, I cannot afford to hire any more people. And I do not wish to be held responsible, either morally or legally, for maintaining a work environment that is potentially threatening to the health of the staff, nor can government, in my respectful view, afford to be held vicariously liable.

           "We've been making do by working at full capacity and personal peak performance, but that may not be sustainable in the long run without consequences. I have accordingly come to the conclusion that I have no choice but to ask you to consider providing sufficient additional funding to allow me to add an additional investigative analyst to our Vancouver staff."

           Well, since that letter, two additional factors have arisen that impact my budget request today. You may have read in today's paper, for example — although it's been in the news — that the Solicitor General is contemplating making the SkyTrain police a designated agency. By definition, a designated agency of SkyTrain people would fall under my jurisdiction, so that any complaints arising out of that would also be part of our jurisdiction. In today's paper there's a suggestion that if that happens, there will be another 82 police officers, in essence, who will be part of our mandate. There will be increased officers. So that's one issue.

[1235]

           The second unanticipated event for which I couldn't plan was the recent impact that the recommendation regarding the increase in judicial salaries has on my current budget. I realize this is only a recommendation that was tabled, I believe, in early October. In the event that the recommendation becomes legislation, what the members of this committee are undoubtedly aware of, but not everybody is, is that the salaries of the legislative officers, me included, are tied to the salary of the chief Provincial Court judge. I'm advised that since the increase would be retroactive to last January, that will have an overall impact on the current budget in addition to having to be factored into budgets for future years. I suspect that the conflict commissioner's submission to you may be that his budget would also be impacted by this.

           The next section — and I'm just about there — is the funds required to pay for the public hearing and legal costs. I don't want dwell on this. You acknowledged last time that you recognized that the cost of public hearings would be the subject of additional funding requests over and above my administrative operational budget. Well, you should know that some of the public hearings I called for last fiscal year are actually in progress in this fiscal year. Last year we were able to absorb a portion of the costs of the preliminary stages of the public hearings within our administrative budget so that it wasn't necessary to come to you for additional funding. I didn't come to you for more money.

           That, unfortunately, is not the case this year. As you are undoubtedly aware, because of active media reporting, I have called for a number of public hearings, all of which are expected to take place this fiscal year. The public hearing into the Guns N' Roses concert cancellation incident has already taken place, and the figures show what that cost. The Berg matter is in progress and should hopefully conclude before the end of the calendar year. In the interim, there is ongoing litigation at the Supreme Court level, launched by counsel for the complainant, that has also attracted additional, unanticipated legal costs.

           The Stanley Park matter has already taken about four days of hearing time before an adjudicator for the case management conference that I dealt with personally. The actual public hearing is now scheduled for April 2005, and although it won't affect this year's budget, I know it's going to cost me money in next year's budget.

           I would like to take a larger role in conducting the public hearings personally. I am a barrister. However, I have received advice that it's probably not appropriate for me to personally handle the public hearings, because the decisions I make are quasi-judicial in terms of calling the hearing, and then I should not be an advocate to call them. I can do the case management conference, and I've done that, but I can't do the public hearings. We did that because I didn't have the budget to hire somebody else to do it.

           I'm going to skip over the overview and core business areas. They're printed there for you. They were in last year's submission. They are there. I'm certainly happy to take any questions on that. But let's move over, if I may, to page 11, which is the resource summary for the current fiscal year.

           The committee's report of December 12, 2003, set the budget for the office of the police complaint commissioner of $985,150 for 2004-05, and instructed the commissioner to continue to follow the process outlined in the committee's first report for making submissions for contingency funding to pay for unforeseen expenses related to public hearings and court challenges. The commissioner communicated to the Chair

[ Page 2352 ]

and the vice-Chair of the committee in a letter dated September 3, 2004, which I've just told you about, a projected budget shortfall arising from the need to backfill the position of a staff member who was absent due to illness — I projected some $55,000; that was both salary and the benefits that come with those things — and substantial costs arising from public hearings.

           I've also told you about the final report to the 2004 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission. That impact — the salary adjustment retroactive to January, inclusive of benefits, chargebacks — in this fiscal year is estimated to be about $20,000.

           Costs incurred for hearings to date are $41,000 in external expenses — by external, I mean adjudicator, registrar, transcripts, etc. — and $28,000 in internal costs — what it's cost me in-house, basically, for travel, for the commission counsel, accommodation, etc.

[1240]

           I anticipate that additional hearing and legal costs in the order of some $50,000 may be incurred between now and the end of the fiscal year. These costs are associated with the continuing Berg hearing. I'm therefore requesting the committee grant additional funding for this fiscal year of $75,000 for the administrative costs and $50,000 for hearing costs.

           Now, turning, as I must, to the projections for future years. The committee in its December 12 report reviewed next year to assess whether the annual appropriation will be maintained at $985,000 for 2005-06 and 2006-07. I'm asking you to please approve a budget for $1.259 million in fiscal 2006, $1.342 million in 2007 and $1.369 million in fiscal 2008.

           Why? Well, it's based on the increase in the staffing level to deliver the core services by the increase of one investigator and on $100,000 dedicated to public hearing and legal costs. While the committee has extended the invitation to come before it for contingency funding for hearing costs, experience indicates that this amount is likely to be required as a minimum. From a financial management perspective, it's necessary for the office to know that reasonable funds are available at the start of the fiscal year.

           It's very uncomfortable to spend money that you know you don't have. The legislation requires that you do it, but you have no real assurance other than that you can ask for it — but you may not receive. That's just, to me, a very uncomfortable way to run a shop. I want you to think about that.

           An increase of $60,000 over the 2005 budget is essential just to maintain the current staffing level. This requirement, to cover the increased salary awarded to officers of the Legislature, normal increments due to staff and the projected increase in the central benefits chargeback rate from 23 percent to 24 percent….

           Now, there is a resource summary printed for you in figures. Mr. Lanny Hubbard, our director of corporate services, sitting to my right, is available and I think can probably answer any of your detailed financial questions. He's been of great assistance to us in providing the details and giving me updates as to how close I am to overspending. He's here to answer those questions.

           If I may just trouble you for a few moments. I see I still have lots of time. On page 13, I want to just highlight some of the key features and service consequences of this budget. Funding at the requested level of $1.259 million will allow the office of the police complaint commissioner to add one additional investigator — for a total of seven staff, not including the commissioner — and provide $100,000 dedicated for hearing and legal costs. And I repeat: that $100,000 is…. I won't use any of those funds for administrative purposes. That's a dedicated amount. If I don't spend it, God willing, it comes back. The $100,000 for legal hearing costs is reserved strictly for that purpose.

           Point 3. An increase of $60,000 in the 2005-06 budget is essential just to maintain the current staffing level. This is required to cover the increased salary awarded to officers of the Legislature, if that happens — I'm not saying it is, but I've got to plan for it because it's a possibility; for me to overlook it I don't think is appropriate — normal increments due to staff and the projected increase in the central benefits chargeback rate that I mentioned before from 23 percent to 24 percent.

[1245]

           The proposed budget of $1.342 million for fiscal 2006-07 provides for the increase in the commissioner's salary; other salary adjustments based on an assumed — and here we're ballparking; we're guessing — 3 percent increase and other minor increases in operating costs. The proposed budget for 2007-08: $1.369 million provides for the increase in the commissioner's salary. Again, other salary adjustments — and here we're ballparking a 2 percent increase — and other minor increases in operating costs. Now, the budget reflects a continuation of shared office space with the office of the ombudsman and the office of the information and protection of privacy commissioner. In addition, the office is obtaining payroll, financial and systems support from the office of the ombudsman through a shared-services agreement, and we find that the $25,000 capital budget is satisfactory at the moment.

           Now, appendix A gives you the budget details. That, Mr. Chair and hon. members of the committee, is my paraphrased Reader's Digest version of what I want you to be aware of, and I'm happy to answer any of your questions about why it is I'm making these recommendations. Mr. Hubbard is available to answer any detailed questions about ledgers and things.

           Thank you.

           B. Belsey (Chair): Thank you. I see we do have some questions from the members.

           M. Hunter: Thanks, Dirk, for your report. I am, of course — having sat around this committee now for a couple of years — familiar with your arguments, and I understand the background to your report. I've got one question in terms of the approach you've taken and a

[ Page 2353 ]

comment you make in the report and then a couple of questions about the budget.

           Let me ask the question about the operational stuff. On page 5, you talk about establishing mediation services.

           D. Ryneveld: Yes, sir.

           M. Hunter: That's something you can't do now, but you would like to do. Is the reason you would like to do that for just good business, or do you see, in establishing mediation, a savings in terms of actual commission public hearings, I guess, or other investigations?

           D. Ryneveld: I'm really pleased that you asked that question. I'm a little bit embarrassed that I didn't actually put that in the report. Yes, in a nutshell. The literature, my research, on this particular area is that — and perhaps those of who you sat on the review committee heard from Mr. Paul Monty, the Quebec commissioner, and in Calgary — there are mediation programs that are in place, and those mediation programs have resolved a great number of matters. If you can get both sides to agree on something, sometimes all that's required is an apology or an explanation as to what it is that the police officer did that the citizen isn't aware of — if you could only have a professionally mediated agreement. A lot of the mediation is done sort of informally by the police at the first instance, but when one side or another is seen to be representative of one of the parties to the conflict, that doesn't always work as well as when you have a professionally mediated service. Based on my own experience as a lawyer, mediation works, and it saves money, and it saves acrimony.

           The second part of it is that satisfying a public complaint in this way restores, I believe, credibility in the process, both for the police if they believe that they've been heard properly — rather than being done unto by someone else or having someone else make a decision — and for the public to know that they have been heard, they've been listened to, and the matter has been discussed and resolved. Now, there are some matters that cannot be mediated. There are some matters too serious to go to mediation. But I believe that with a mediation program, we can cut down our numbers of matters, and there will also be a saving to the police, because those matters may not have to go to a full investigation with me getting bundles of paper like that to review.

           That's my long answer to a very good question.

           M. Hunter: Okay. Thank you. Leading on from that, first of all, Dirk, I would be interested if there is…. Without going to any great deal of research, if you have kind of top-of-the-mind other jurisdiction evidence that supports your personal view, which I actually share — I mean, intuitively, it makes sense — I think that would be helpful.

[1250]

           So leading from that, does your request of $1.259 million and a further increase in the out years…? I understand that allows for an addition of one staff. Does that request allow you to start to move into mediation services?

           D. Ryneveld: Let me answer it this way. If we were to get one additional staff member, I think that would help with the training, etc., and we might be able to multi-task so that some of our investigative analysts also get involved in the mediation as a third party — not the complainant, not the police officer but our office.

           I don't know whether that is as good as getting a professional mediation service to do it, and I don't believe I have factored in $50,000. I thought that if I had a $50,000 pot to do a pilot project on mediation that would be over and above the $1.259 million — yes. I have suggested that it's a really good idea, but I haven't been so bold as to ask for more money.

           M. Hunter: Okay, thanks. That's clear.

           Now I just want to move to the key features in the service consequences. Perhaps, Lanny, I could direct this question to you. The text talks about an increase of $60,000 in the '05-06 budget being essential just to maintain current staffing levels. Then it goes on to talk about normal increments due to staff.

           I think I'll throw in a question here, because public servants right now are in a zero-zero-zero mode, and I think we need to be cognizant of that. The figure of $60,000 is in my mind, but when I go to appendix A, I see a change in salaries proposed of $107,000 plus $42,000 in benefits, aside from the office-of-the-Legislature salary increase, which is dictated by factors outside of our control.

           Can you relate for me the $60,000, which you're saying is essential, to the $107,000 plus $42,000? Are you saying that $60,000 is necessary and that the additional staff member you're talking about makes up the other number? I'm a little confused.

           L. Hubbard: Yeah. The column on the detail page, on appendix A, for 2005-06 includes an additional staff member. But without the additional staff member, if you'd look at the salary increments…. It has nothing to do with the general salary increase; it has to do with increments that are provided for staffing.

           As you know, when Mr. Ryneveld took over and started up the office, it was basically a fresh start with the staffing. New staff are entitled to increments. They're not at the top of their salary scale, so there are increments that come due on an annual basis. In addition, the benefits chargeback rate of from 23 percent to 24 percent impacts both on the STOB 50 — the salaries for the staff — plus the commissioner's salary.

           If you take 1 percent of those two amounts, you'll see, I think, that it's probably in the order of $10,000 to $15,000 in terms of no salary changes at all, and those benefit chargeback rates will go up. We don't know that for sure yet, but in the discussions that have been going on in the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service Agency and so on, the suggestion is that it's likely

[ Page 2354 ]

the rate will go up, plus the increased costs for the officer's salary. Basically, just little pieces moving around result in that $60,000. The difference, then, is the additional one position.

           M. Hunter: Okay. And Mr. Chair, if I may, one last question.

           Is the increase of $60,000, the essential increase to maintain current staffing levels, is that based on the current circumstances with respect to the employee that's on sick leave?

           L. Hubbard: No. That is assuming that the employee is back to work. As Mr. Ryneveld mentioned, he is back to work. He's still in recovery mode, but we're hoping that he's permanently back to work. It's just based on an assumption of the six positions that are current — the FTEs that are funded in the office.

[1255]

           M. Hunter: Okay. So if the individual who has been on sick leave is unable to come back to work, I assume that long-term disability kicks in and that comes off your books. Is that…?

           L. Hubbard: Yes, after six months of continuous leave.

           G. Halsey-Brandt: Just to clarify for me, then: for the public hearings, you're asking for $100,000 in a separate fund. You'll either expend it or not, and it'll come back next year.

           The additional staff in that area is $175,000. I take it that $60,000 of that is earmarked for benefits and wages and things like that, plus an additional staff member — right?

           L. Hubbard: That's correct.

           G. Halsey-Brandt: Okay. The other one you mentioned is $125,000 retro for this year. On page 11, I think, you identified a couple of amounts in there — a $75,000 and a $50,000.

           L. Hubbard: That's correct. The $75,000 is made up of the $55,000 backfill costs to replace the employee who was ill, plus $20,000 to cover the anticipated salary increase for the commissioner, which is retroactive, actually, into the last fiscal year. Those three months would have to be paid out of this fiscal year.

           That's an impact that's going to be common across all of the officers of the Legislature, assuming that the report that was tabled, which recommended the Provincial Court judges' salary increases…. There was a report tabled, I believe, a couple of weeks ago in the Legislature. The Attorney General tabled that report.

           G. Halsey-Brandt: Right. Yes, I remember that.

           L. Hubbard: My understanding is — I believe it's 21 sitting days — that if there's no response, no intervention, then those recommendations take effect. The commissioner's salary, as are the rest of the officers of the Legislature's salaries, is tied to the salary of the chief Provincial Court judge.

           That report makes recommendations for this fiscal year extending back into January 1, so it covers three months of last year — plus it makes recommendations forward for the next three years, which I have reflected in the detailed sheet.

           G. Halsey-Brandt: Appendix A?

           L. Hubbard: Yeah.

           G. Halsey-Brandt: The $50,000 is for those public hearings that you had referred to earlier in the report.

           L. Hubbard: Yes. The actual costs for public hearings have exceeded the $50,000, but based on the projections of where we are in expenditures year to date, I'm anticipating — barring any really outrageous surprises — that with $50,000 extra on that side, we will be able to meet the budget.

           D. Ryneveld: In essence, what we're saying is that part of those public hearing costs are coming out of operational. It's only when I've spent more that we're asking $50,000.

           G. Halsey-Brandt: Right. Good. Thank you very much.

           R. Lee: I also have had the privilege of sitting at a committee to review the police complaint process a couple of years ago. Some of those recommendations…. For example, I believe Mike mentioned the mediation services. I think the idea is to establish procedures for mediation services. Somehow you have to look into the process, and then the mediation can be done by the police themselves, actually. I don't know which model you are following, but there is some suggestion of expanding the mediation process.

           D. Ryneveld: Thank you, member. I understand what you're saying. We have a protocol in place that isn't, unfortunately, being followed, because we don't have the police conducting as many mediations as we think are possible. My recommendation to you is that we try a pilot project of a mediation service to see how this working.

[1300]

           I understand and I undertake to provide to you, if you're…. Don't forget: that request for $50,000 isn't in here. I'm asking you for additional money to do that. I will provide you with some of the statistics that came out of Quebec, and I believe that Calgary is another…. That's just a city program as opposed to a provincial program. Both of them have got excellent programs with the kinds of results that I think will persuade you, as they have me, that we should consider doing that ourselves, because it improves the whole process. A lot

[ Page 2355 ]

of that, I think, you can understand from just common sense and applying day-to-day experiences. What works for marriage counselling, what works for all kinds of other mediated resolutions would also work for handling complaints. That's what I'm saying to you.

           I will see that the committee, through the Clerk of the committee, gets copies of the material that I will provide you in support of this suggestion.

           R. Lee: And also for the resources requested.

           We've got: "Set aside order for recommendation listed." Were you able to implement it? Of course, the second one is for the Solicitor General.

           D. Ryneveld: Yes, that's for the Solicitor General.

           R. Lee: So you will be implementing the training materials — "will provide materials for training" — and also educational outreach initiatives to the diverse communities including marginalized groups. Do you have enough resources?

           D. Ryneveld: No, but if I have the additional investigator, then what we had discussed in the office is having people taking some of their time and going in the evenings to speak to certain groups, to be involved in the native…. There are a number of groups who might want to have us attend and explain things to them. It's an outreach. It's an explanation of the process, but you can't do that if everybody is just looking at files all the time. We need to have an additional person that we can then, among ourselves, take some of the time to go out and do these things. We just can't do it.

           R. Lee: But for the training, I'm not sure how much — how many hours — you or the deputy can spend in the Justice Institute just for information about the Police Act.

           D. Ryneveld: I understand what you're saying. With respect, I believe that we should be attending at the Justice Institute on a regular basis and providing and a half-day or a full-day course. You need training materials, you need to build a program, and you need to integrate with various police forces — just getting that up and going, then letting the police officers who are coming into this force be informed about not only the process but demystifying it and instilling confidence in the process. That's a lot better than trying to earn it after the fact and after they may have received reports from other officers who may have a jaundiced view about the way things are going. I would like to be able to catch them at the first instance and let them know what the process is all about and how they are protected by it.

           R. Lee: You are finding now that you don't have the time to do that?

           D. Ryneveld: All we have the time to do now — and I'm not sure we have the time — is attend the graduation ceremonies. Frankly, that is simply icing. It doesn't do anything in the way of training. It lets them know that hey, we're out there, but it doesn't really tell them what we do.

           R. Lee: Okay, thank you.

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much. I appreciate your report. Most of the questions have been asked already, but there are a couple of other ones.

           Under "Officer of the Legislature Salary", the $175,000 for year 2004 then going to $228,000 in 2007. That's a $53,000 increase. Is that for your salary? Does that include benefits, or is just without benefits?

           D. Ryneveld: I think Mr. Hubbard is going to have to deal with that. At the moment I can't afford that largesse. My salary doesn't allow me to pay myself an increase. This is not me asking for more money. I'm saying that this is what might happen by due process of law if the enactment is passed. Mr. Hubbard might be able to answer your question.

[1305]

           L. Hubbard: The actual salary for the officers of the Legislature this year is approximately $172,000. A year ago we put $175,000 in the budget for this fiscal year, because we knew that the commission would be reviewing the judges' salaries. Last year I thought, okay, how much might it go up? I put $175,000 in that. That was apparently not very good projecting. In fact, it's going to be about $15,000 more than that in terms of the cost of salaries and benefits for the current fiscal year.

           The way the report is structured, it's based on a cost-of-living increment that's applied. I've taken B.C. stats and looked at what the cost-of-living increase is over the year and projected that that's going to be $190,000 next year. The only fixed number in the commission's recommendations is the salary attached to 2006-07, and they specifically set that at $222,000 in terms of the salary for the chief Provincial Court judge. Then the following year, again, it's a cost-of-living increment, which I've just estimated.

           My projection for this year was $175,000. That is an underestimate as to what the committee has actually recommended. The benefits costs are included in STOB 52, so you have to add…. Currently, 23 percent of the salary costs come out of STOB 52 for benefits charges.

           D. Hayer: Assuming that in 2007-08 we have to pay $228,000 with all the estimates for the salary of the commissioner….

           L. Hubbard: That's correct.

           D. Hayer: Then if I look at your base budget for 2004-05, it was $985,000. For '07-08 it comes to $1,369,000. That's about a 38 percent or 39 percent increase. What happens if you don't get all of the increase? Are there certain expenses that we have to have

[ Page 2356 ]

because they are required, and you can adjust the other ones? Or do we have to have a full increase in order for the office to do its job?

           L. Hubbard: Well, $100,000 of that bottom line is the dedicated public hearing costs. That actually shows up under STOB 60 for professional services. You see where in the current year it says $44,000, and then it's $140,000. In terms of whether it's essential, it's really a matter of whether this committee authorizes what, based on experience, is a reasonable amount for the public hearing process — with the proviso that if it's not spent, then it won't be reallocated to other purposes — or whether we start the year without that budget, that $100,000, and immediately have to come to the committee and ask for supplementary funding.

           We know right now that there are hearings that Mr. Ryneveld has already initiated that are going to go into the next fiscal year, so there are going to be hearing costs. To simply have to come to the committee and ask for supplementary funding introduces additional work both for this committee and for the House, because those additional funds ultimately have to be authorized through supplementary spending estimates.

           D. Hayer: Just a last question. You suggested that you want to make some changes to mediation, and that might mean, by putting some extra money into the mediation, that the total budget required for 2007-08 might go down because of the effects of the mediation. Is that a possibility?

           D. Ryneveld: The benefit, I think, would be seen not so much in the bottom line of what we're doing but in the quality of service that's being provided and in the amount of full investigations that the police wouldn't be conducting. You can't just measure the benefit in dollars and cents in my budget. You can get those benefits in terms of…. Right now the police are adding additional members to their internal investigation section because there has been a considerable increase in the number of files that are being fully investigated as opposed to being summarily dismissed.

[1310]

           Secondly, if a number of those investigations are not necessary because there is informal mediation and resolution so that people withdraw their complaints or sign off on them that they have been informally resolved, there are benefits, I guess, to the municipal police forces. More power to them — in the sense that if they cost less budget, we're saving somebody money. It may not be reflected in my budget, but I know I'm doing my job right. I know that I'm fulfilling a public interest. The bottom line is: that's my job.

           D. Hayer: The saving would be for somebody else. Thank you very much.

           D. Ryneveld: Thank you, sir.

           L. Stephens: Thank you both very much for being here today. This is my first time on the committee, so I appreciate your presentation very much.

           A couple of comments. One is around mediation. I think mediation is a good way to proceed with a number of initiatives. The family justice centres have moved to mediation, and they're doing a pretty good job there. I think that's a good example of what you were talking about in trying to resolve conflicts between various individuals or groups and organizations, and that works as well.

           Public hearings. I think those are necessary if all else fails. I think that's where you're suggesting you would be using public hearings — if that were something you had to do if you couldn't resolve the dispute through mediation.

           D. Ryneveld: Yes.

           L. Stephens: I also get the impact of the judges' salary increases. That's something you have no control over. That is mandated through the Legislature. That is ongoing, and the cost of living is as well. I understand those.

           The clarification I would like here is that you're asking for $125,000 for this fiscal year to cover those additional administrative costs that you talked about and for the additional hearing costs that are going to be completing this year and running into next year. Then, on top of that, there is the outgoing years' budgets for '05-06, '06-07 and '07-08. You've laid out the costs that are built into these issues that we've just been talking about on the outgoing years. You're confident that what you have laid here for your '05-06, '06-07 and '07-08 is reasonably reflective of what you anticipate, looking down the road that far, of what your requirements will be.

           D. Ryneveld: Yes. It's our best estimate, I believe, based on an informed look at what's on our plate. We can't anticipate all eventualities, but that is my best prediction, not having shined up the crystal ball lately. That's the whole idea about a projected budget: God willing and circumstances permitting, that's it.

           L. Stephens: Best guess with some flexibility for unintended whatever. Okay. Great. Thank you.

           D. Ryneveld: That's exactly it. Thank you.

           R. Lee: I looked at page 45 in the report. It mentioned that the FTE allocation was nine last year, and six were filled. You also have only six this year. It seems that the budget does not reflect the number of staff actually in the service plan.

           D. Ryneveld: Allow me to clarify that if I may. You will recall, sir, that my predecessor had a much larger budget. These FTEs allotted were my predecessor's maximum allotment. I believe he had, at one time, 11 people.

[ Page 2357 ]

           When I took over in February 2003, as I believe I mentioned to you, I was left with an office temp and a deputy. All the staff had gone. Not only that, but the service plan that had been filed by the deputy during that hiatus period when the commissioner was no longer in office and before I was selected and appointed and could take office…. That service plan was done on a totally different structure.

[1315]

           When I took office — and I explained this in some detail last year to this committee — I re-evaluated how the office could run. I had to do it with bare funds because we had been slashed, as you know — as everyone else had — incrementally, in years. So how could I give the province the best service for the fewest dollars? I thought I could not afford more than six people. That includes one secretary, one support staff, in each office. I do a lot of my own typing and stuff like that simply because we don't have support staff.

           I'm not even asking for another support staff. It's teamwork. If you look at the structure, it's very flat. We don't have a lot of administrative levels. I guess what I'm saying is that I could only afford to fill six of the 11 that were originally suggested that the office needs. It's one thing to say you're allowed to hire 11 but only giving me money to hire six. I'm saying, "Can I have some more, please?" as it were, because I want to hire one more. Even if I hire one more person, I'm still, as I understand it — let's do the math — four short of my allotment, of the number of FTEs my office ought to be entitled to.

           It's one thing to say: "You can have this many people." It's another thing to say: "Here's the money to do that with." That's why it's six out of 11.

           R. Lee: Thank you.

           L. Hubbard: Maybe I could just expand on that a little bit to help clarify as well. That year was very much a transition year. It was through the latter part of that year that the three offices — police complaint commissioner, ombudsman's office and information and privacy — combined. The shared-services process was started. Where the police complaint commissioner's office looked after its own budget preparation, administrative support functions now are part of the shared-services arrangement. Police complaint commissioner, in terms of a strategy to meet the target reductions in the budget…. That was part of the process — combine offices, shift services, draw services from the office of the ombudsman.

           Now, his office does contribute some towards that, obviously; it's not a free service. But overall, the efficiency of the three offices in terms of financial, HR, admin support, systems support…. All that is achieved collectively through the shared-services arrangement that was put in place internally.

           Those FTEs…. There would have been more positions, but as you know, not all FTEs cost the same amount as well. It's a dual currency — both salary dollars and FTEs.

           R. Lee: I also believe that now you have two offices, or two fronts — right? Originally, I think it was believed that the office would be located in only one location. I don't exactly know the transition, but I can see that there are some difficulties in running the office.

           D. Ryneveld: If I might just answer that question, sir. When I took office, government said: "Your lease expires in six weeks." I had no staff. I knew that shared services was recommended. I had to find a way…. Before I could staff up and hire people for Vancouver, where the former officer…. Oh, and there were criticisms that the office space the office was in was perhaps a little extravagant.

           So I knew I had to move somewhere, and in order to take advantage of shared services, I had to go where the other officers of the Legislature were. That's Victoria. But there was also a recommendation from your committee, sir, that we maintain an office in Vancouver, because that's where a lot of the problems were. So I had to find a way with a reduced budget to increase access to the public. The only way I could do that is by having shared services. It's because the ombudsman, the information and privacy commissioner and I were able to find a way to substantially save money on the building and by using the shared resources and the computer technician people, etc. That resulted in savings to enable me to do some of the other things I needed to do.

[1320]

           So yes, it's worked very well, and we're very happy with the service. But it wasn't for free. I have to pay. A portion of Mr. Hubbard's salary comes out of my funding even though some of it comes under the ombudsman's and some of it comes out of the privacy commissioner's. But I'll tell you, it's a very effective way. I mean, I can recommend shared services, because it works. It saves money.

           R. Lee: Okay, those are all my questions. Thank you.

           B. Belsey (Chair): I have one question. On page 8, the funds required to pay for public hearing and legal costs, you make reference there to: "Last year we were able to absorb the portion of the costs for the preliminary stages of the public hearing within the administrative budget." Do you have any idea how many dollars that was?

           D. Ryneveld: Last year? Let me see. I don't know whether you have that amount available, Mr. Hubbard.

           Last year I was able to save money, and I'll tell you how. Normally, I would have come to you for more money, but I started…. Because we were moving the office between February and…. Before we got into our office space in September, I saved a whole lot because I was basically working out of office space in the ombudsman's office, which had very small, windowless offices. We were able to save on rent. Our rent stopped at the end of March. Remember, my lease expired, and

[ Page 2358 ]

I didn't have to pay rent until September, when we moved into our new co-location. So we saved a lot of money just by working out of cupboards, basically, for the first few months.

           I couldn't staff up for a period once we moved to Victoria. By the time you hire people, etc…. We saved on salaries there. There were a lot of savings that were never intended to be long term, but the bottom line is we were able to apply those unspent funds towards our public hearing cost.

           Now, I know I haven't answered your question about how much we have spent on public hearings. A lot of them didn't actually get…. Although I had to call them and we did case management stuff, I don't think there was that much in the way of….

           Do you have the figure?

           L. Hubbard: I don't have the figure here, but most of the hearings didn't get going until this fiscal year.

           D. Ryneveld: We did the case management conferences. I believe we had to pay for the judge's travel from Kelowna to Vancouver and some accommodation. We did some initial things, but I don't believe that the public hearings — Guns N' Roses, for example, which was the first one that actually went to the public hearing stage — happened until this fiscal year. Similarly, the Berg matter — although it started, most of that happened in this fiscal year. Stanley Park — although it happened in this year, the public hearing isn't scheduled to start until April, which is next fiscal year. That's how we were able to absorb all of the public hearing costs out of my last year's budget without having to come to you. That's it.

           I'm sorry I don't have a figure, but I think it was less than $30,000.

           B. Belsey (Chair): So this year you have the Guns N' Roses and the Jeff Berg….

           D. Ryneveld: The Berg matter and some…. We have costs that aren't public hearing costs, but they're investigation costs, like travel costs for the Stanley Park matter. Now, that promises to be…. I realize we're on the record. That promises to be a fairly extensive matter. It's a very serious issue, and the matter is being enjoined by both the Vancouver Police Union and the Vancouver police department, each of which are seeking status, so it will probably be a prolonged matter. Fortunately, the adjudicator is a Vancouver adjudicator, so I won't have to pay for travel and accommodation costs. Again, I don't choose who the adjudicator is.

           B. Belsey (Chair): Thank you. I look to the members. Are there any more questions?

           Gentlemen, thank you very much for taking the time and presenting today. We certainly do appreciate it. I understand you want to collect these.

           D. Ryneveld: I do. You've all got a copy, I think. These are the only copies I've got left. I don't want to order any more out of this year's budget, so if you're done with them, I'd love to have them back. Thank you.

           B. Belsey (Chair): Thank you very much. I need a motion for adjournment.

           The committee adjourned at 1:25 p.m.

[ Return to: Finance and Government Services Committee Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Copyright © 2004: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada