Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 66 — Wednesday, November 28, 2007 (HTML)

2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
MINUTES AND HANSARD

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES



CONTENTS

		Page

Office of the Merit Commissioner		1647
	J. Illington
	L. Hubbard

Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner		1649
	D. Ryneveld
	L. Hubbard

Office of the Ombudsman		1654
	K. Carter
	L. Hubbard

Chair:	* Bill Bennett (East Kootenay L)
Deputy Chair:	* Bruce Ralston (Surrey-Whalley NDP)
Members:	* Iain Black (Port Moody–Westwood L) * Harry Bloy (Burquitlam L) * Randy Hawes (Maple Ridge–Mission L) * Dave S. Hayer (Surrey-Tynehead L) Richard T. Lee (Burnaby North L) * John Horgan (Malahat–Juan de Fuca NDP) Jenny Wai Ching Kwan (Vancouver–Mount Pleasant NDP) Bob Simpson (Cariboo North NDP) * denotes member present


Witnesses:	Kim Carter (Ombudsman) Lanny Hubbard (Office of the Ombudsman) Joy Illington (Merit Commissioner) Dirk Ryneveld (Police Complaint Commissioner)

B. Bennett (Chair): Members of the committee, could we get started? We're ten minutes behind schedule.

Good morning, Joy and Lanny. I'd like to welcome you to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Joy Illington is the Merit Commissioner, and you are here to present your budget requests for the next fiscal year and the two out-years after that.

J. Illington: Thank you very much, Chair. I'll try and be brief, keeping in mind your concern about time.

I will introduce Lanny Hubbard, director extraordinaire of corporate services. I'd like to add my voice to those of other officers who have appreciated the skills and experience of this dedicated public servant of 35 years. I notice he's wearing his gold watch today. That, I think, will help serve us to keep on time.

My submission is brief. I'm making a request for $60,000 in additional funds for the coming fiscal year that reflects two changes, both related to the increase in volume of work. The first change will be simply to enable us to move from the services of a shared half-time clerical person to one who is full-time. That will be the only administrative person in my office.

The second change is to slightly increase the size of the contracts budget in order to continue to complete audits that are sufficiently robust so that they can be generalized to apply to all new appointments.

I'll go to page 4 in my submission and speak to the changes in the B.C. public service as they relate to the volume of my work. I'm sure that you know that 35 percent of the current bargaining unit employees and 45 percent of managers are eligible to retire within the next seven years. This is close to 10,000 people, or almost one-third of the current public service.

In addition, in 2007 just as many people quit the public service as retired. These are changes that are having to be reflected in changes in hiring as well. Last year all competitions were open to the public. Recruitment is appropriately on the rise.

In 2006 the new appointments increased by 31 percent. This year, in the first six months of 2007, there have been almost as many people hired as in the whole of 2005, so a 45-percent increase in appointments. If you turn to page 7, at the top of the page you'll just see a graph that gives you some idea, when you look at 2005, to understand that in the first six months of 2007 there have been as many new employees as in the whole of 2005.

We can expect that volume to increase. I certainly hadn't expected it to increase as dramatically as it has. I think that it is not inflation of the public service; it is simply replacing those who are leaving. There will be some slowdown of that. I would think that within the next couple of years it is likely that government will have some of the policy work done that is necessary to ensure that public servants will not have to retire but will be able to work on a part-time basis.

The public service is in no different position than any other employer at this moment; that is, they're facing a workforce shortage, and they're having to change what they do to both attract people into the public service and keep people working for the public service.

Government has responded to this challenge with the corporate human resource plan. I have supported that plan in terms of its proposals for making the public service competitive for a workforce. My oversight role is to ensure that hiring efficiencies that are reached will continue to include merit-based appointments.

I do say that that responsibility goes beyond continuing to do audits and appeals. I do provide insight into findings about the importance of merit-based staffing. The way that government hires and promotes will affect whether current employees choose to stay and whether new employees will choose to come and work with the public service.

I'm just going to touch on my audit results for 2006, if I may. Although that was the largest audit on merit-based hiring and promotions ever done, we were aiming for 10 percent. We didn't quite get there; 8 percent of the new appointments were audited. The results were reported to you in the annual report.

B.C. Stats, of course, was consulted on the design of the audit to ensure that the sample was large enough that results could be generalized to all new appointments.

Although the 2006 audit found some process errors, some poor practice and conflict of interest, in no case did any audit find that a person appointed was not qualified to do the job.

The graph on the lower part of page 7 reflects those findings. In 2006, 96 percent of the cases found that merit was applied. There was an exception in about 15 percent of the cases. Merit wasn't applied in 3 percent of the cases, and in 1 percent they were just so badly documented that conclusions couldn't be reached.

You know that there is an annual work environment survey, and in 2007 we have been tracking the results, particularly the results about a question of whether or not merit was the basis of selecting a person for a position in their work unit. In 2007 that number rose to 43 percent, and the number of respondents who disagreed fell to 31 percent from 33 percent in 2006.

Our analysis has found that there are different responses about merit — differences between ministries, between management and bargaining unit positions, between job classifications, between auxiliary and regular employees.

Depending also on the number of years of employment with the B.C. public service, people tend to think that merit does apply in their first two years of employment. In years three to nine the belief in merit

sort of plunges. Then after nine years the belief in merit is quite clearly on the rise again with employees.

That may have to do with several things, including applying for jobs and not getting them. It also may have to do with people understanding that issues like seniority, if you're a bargaining unit position employee, may have more to do with whether or not you are the successful person at the end of a competition rather than the person who necessarily would have had the competition if they had not had the number of years of service.

We did a number of studies. We did ten focus groups with employees across the province. We found some very clear connections between merit-based staffing and employee engagement on productivity and loyalty, and we're sharing that information with managers in the public service now. We'll do our report on the results of that with the next annual report next year.

Turning now to my workplan, if I may, on page 5. We set out a promise to do one annual random audit of new appointments. In addition to that we have plans to complete a special audit each year. In 2007 we have a special audit underway of all direct appointments. These are appointments made without any competition where a person is selected for a specific position. Merit must still be considered, but it's the head of the Public Service Agency who authorizes that appointment based on special or unusual circumstances.

We'll finish that audit in late January. We just have to wait until the year is completely up, so we'll do it on the calendar year of 2007. We already have the first six months of 2007 underway for the annual audit, so we are busy auditing right now.

In 2008-2009 we'll do a special audit of temporary appointments. The purpose of these assignments is to fill a temporary vacancy or to provide a developmental opportunity.

Again, I'm fully supportive of that approach, but I'm concerned about temporary appointments that last for a period of years. If they go on and on as a temporary assignment, competitions should be warranted for what's obviously no longer a temporary vacancy. It results oftentimes in a case where someone who has occupied that job for a number of years feels resentful about having to apply or to compete for that job and frequently deters other people, who may see it as a foregone conclusion as to who is going to win that job.

That is also why, in that special audit, I'd like to look at whether there is a correlation between employees who act in temporary assignments and those who successfully apply for regular appointments in those same positions. I'd like to do that because I think managers ought to know if they're appointing someone and there's a 70-percent chance that that person is going to win the competition. Managers should know that ahead of time, before they make the temporary appointments.

In 2008, also…. I know that this is a time, it appears, of celebrations of many anniversaries, but there is yet one more, dear to my heart, and that is that the office will be marking 100 years since the introduction of the first legislation that set merit as a requirement for entry into the B.C. public service. In 1908 candidates had to pass a competitive exam and provide a certificate of good health and character.

We've planned some modest events to celebrate this anniversary. They will include some cards, some lectures, some history, some slide shows. We've been soliciting the public service for suggestions. I've received a very good suggestion that, unfortunately, I don't think we'll be able to support, and that will be a wine tasting involving the wine that is called Meritage. I assure you that if, indeed, that event does go forward, there won't be any budget expenditure from my office.

The third special audit in 2009-2010 will focus on appointments in ministries where the work environment survey shows a consistent pattern of employees who don't agree that the process of selecting a person for a position in their work unit is based on merit. By that time, the audit will be underway. There will have been three years of surveys and many opportunities internal to the ministry to address the merit question.

Now, last year the committee's decision enabled me to purchase a case-tracker system that allows us to establish a clear record of audit and review findings and to compare year-over-year change in the application of the merit principle and staffing decisions. By 2010-2011 the office will be in a position, based on that case-tracker information, to decide whether the risk assessment process that drives the current structure and selection of audits needs to be changed.

Currently, although all appointments to the public service in terms of auxiliary appointments, temporary appointments for less than seven months or greater than seven months, direct appointments and regular appointments must be based on merit, our risk assessment is that we choose the appointments that are the most numerous and that tell us the most about how merit was assessed. Those are temporary appointments over seven months and regular appointments. Those are the ones that we select in our random audits.

In conclusion, I am requesting that the present funding level for '07-08 be slightly increased by $60,000 so that I can implement the priorities of robust and meaningful audits that I have outlined as necessary for this office to exercise independent oversight of merit-based staffing. With full staffing and a vigorous workplan for the coming years, I believe that the budget request will enable me to carry out the duties of my office.

When you turn to the page that reflects what the actual budget details are, page 11, you will see that there's one more change in the office. I do continue to share services, through the shared services agreement, with the Ombudsman's office. I have been sharing an office with Ombudsman's staff. We each need to add one more person onto our staff, and in my case, we've

had to rent some new space so that we've got enough space. We've moved from a three-office office to a four-office office — very modest offices, I have to say.

That concludes my presentation. I'm ready to answer any questions on the appendix A budget details on page 11. You'll see there the changes: for a full-time clerical person, under STOB 50 for salaries, and for $10,000 more for professional services. That's for the contractors who help me audit. That's under STOB 60.

The only other change reflected in this is the increased rent that I will pay, which has gone from "Building occupancy" in STOB 75 and moved to "Central management services" in STOB 59.

B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Joy. Let me just start it off by asking you for clarification. In the Annual Review of the Budgets of the Independent Offices of the Legislative Assembly from last year, in your portion of the report…. I'll read this back to you. It's a quotation, apparently from you, where you say: "At this time I'm not proposing any further increases over the rest of my term."

J. Illington: I'm regretting that I did say it last year, but last year I was in the full bloom of my very first year — very rosy and optimistic. I have to say that I did not realize the volume of new appointments would be rising quite as quickly as it has.

The other confirmation I need is…. In the recommendations from the report last year — unless this is a typo — the annual appropriation for your budget in the fiscal year that we're in right now was $833,000. You're asking for $60,000 more. But in the second bullet, under "Recommendations," it says that "the office's annual operating budget will be $813,000 for '08-09 and '09-10."

I wasn't on the committee then, so I'm asking: is that what your understanding was?

J. Illington: That is my understanding. It was to fall because I was given $50,000 extra for the purchase of the case-tracker system. I don't need to be spending $50,000 ongoing for that. I do need a bit of money to maintain that case tracker, but that was why it was going to fall.

L. Hubbard: It was included in the operating because it was internal. The case tracker was actually a modification of the case tracker for the Ombudsman's office. It was customized for the Merit Commissioner's office.

B. Bennett (Chair): I don't fully understand how you get from…. Basically, what you're saying is that instead of $813,000, you're asking for $893,000, which is $80,000 more, not $60,000 more. Isn't that correct?

J. Illington: Yes, that is correct. Sorry. I was looking at it as going from $833,000, but yes, you're correct.

B. Bennett (Chair): So the extra $20,000 is related to the operation of this system that you installed last year?

J. Illington: It's related to the ongoing maintenance of the case tracker, and it's also related to my increased rent.

B. Bennett (Chair): Okay. That's it for me. Any questions, committee members?

Members, we'll just take a recess until our next presenter gets here. Thank you.

We have here Police Complaint Commissioner Mr. Ryneveld to present to us. Welcome, sir.

B. Bennett (Chair): Mr. Hubbard has been introduced already, and the committee is getting to know him well. Welcome, Mr. Hubbard, again.

If you'd like to present, Mr. Ryneveld, we'll let you take whatever time you need, and then we'll have some questions for you after.

D. Ryneveld: Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. And yes, without Mr. Hubbard, you can realize that the four offices that share services and colocate would be at a real loss. Mr. Hubbard does an excellent job for all of us.

As you can well appreciate, the experiment that we attempted when I became Police Complaint Commissioner — to get together with the Privacy Commissioner and the Ombudsman to try to colocate and share services — has been an excellent pilot project for us and one that we hope to continue. It certainly has saved all of us a lot of money, and it's also been very useful.

Now, I'm in a similar position to last year, in that last November I came here saying basically that I was awaiting the report from the former Mr. Justice Joe Wood, because when it was released, if it was accepted by government, it would have huge budgetary implications for my office. In February that report was, in fact, released. However, things go exceedingly slow and exceedingly fine.

I'm therefore now, in November, in the same position I was in last year, with some refinements, in the sense that I now know that there are some 91 recommendations in Mr. Wood's report. Those, happily, are about 95 percent in compliance with my own report to you — my annual report of 2004 — whereby I indicated that there needed to be amendments to the Police Act in order for it to be more effective and for our office to be more robust in civilian oversight of policing.

I can guess right now that if Mr. Wood's report translates into legislation, it would likely have a minimum of a doubling effect on a workload for our office and, also, an increase in the type of work that we will have to do. In other words, our involvement in the files will be contemporaneous, and we also would have the power to direct the investigations to a certain extent.

To explain to you what that difference would be, at the moment we have an ex post facto review function, whereas then, from the time the complaint goes, we will be on line seeing what the police are doing, being able to make suggestions about the way in which the investigation should go and not having to wait until the six-month investigation period is over before we get to look at the file, because all that does is add more time to the resolution process. Then, if we find that more investigation needs to be done, that of course adds more time to it.

Our involvement will be more thorough. It will be more immediate and therefore, I think, will require even more resources.

The other thing that we're finding is that although in my 2006 annual report I have indicated that we have had a steady increase in files…. That's true. We've opened more files pretty much each year. But the files are more complex, and what's more, that's not broken down into the number of complaints.

In other words, a file may have more than one allegation in it. There could be an abuse of trust; there could be neglect of duty; there could be a combination. There could also be a service and policy component that we have to struggle with about making recommendations to police boards in order to change some of the guidelines and policies that are in place in order to avoid these situations from arising in the future.

That would be…. Perhaps three allegations and a service and policy component might originate from one particular complainant, and it would be one file. So we've noticed not only more work but more complexity to the files and more involvement by our staff.

Because, on much of this, I anticipate I will be coming back to you later during the next fiscal period — if, God willing and the Legislature permitting, Mr. Wood's report translates into actual legislation — I don't know how much you want to hear from me today about the effect that I think it'll have on the need for additional funding.

At the moment I can say to you, as I did in my annual report, that already I notice that the timeliness of our response to files is not satisfactory, in my view. I had to take an interim step this year to hire another analyst. I was able to hire another analyst on the basis of economizing on my existing budget this year.

However, although I can pay for that out of this year's budget, that position needs to continue, so I will need more money next year in order to be able to maintain the one I hired this year on this year's budget. We also need yet another analyst in the interim.

As you can appreciate, I have two physical locations. I have a Vancouver office and a Victoria office. I have one support staff in each. If anybody goes on holidays or gets sick — or if there are any projects, like public hearings, where you need support staff to dedicate a block of time to do trial books and basic paralegal work — you don't have support staff. I need another support staff.

The proposal I have in my budget for you for this upcoming fiscal period would be to add one more analyst and one support staff. I think that's outlined in our documentation.

Other than that, I believe that for the time being we will be able to operate next year within that budget, until Mr. Wood's report becomes legislation. I'm strongly urging that to happen sooner rather than later.

I should, perhaps, indicate one other thing that I anticipate will happen if that translates into legislation. Mr. Wood has indicated that rather than only include lodged form 1 complaints as a file, he's recommending that all complaints, whether they're on the particular right form — you know, properly signed with a form 1 on top….

That is not the only way by which files should be created. If people want to write letters or make oral complaints, or if they fax it on a piece of foolscap rather than on something labelled form 1, that should be a complaint, and it should be investigated. In other words, a complaint should not be dictated by the form that it's on. That's form over substance. If that's the case, we….

I agree with that proposal. The difference is that in Vancouver, for example, I understand that we got only half the actual complaints on form 1s. I understand from some of the other municipal police that that's about their statistic as well. About half the incidents reported by way of a complaint end up being lodged as a form 1 complaint. By virtue of that, I expect our workload will double simply by definition of what a complaint is and what needs to be investigated.

But these are all things I'll be talking to you about later. Right now I'm speculating, because it's not legislation yet. But that is out there, and if it becomes legislation, as I hope it will, there'll be that significant impact.

Mr. Hubbard may be able to assist in terms of…. There is an increase involved here. I believe the total increase over last year's budget is about $321,000, but that's made up largely in core services, including salaries and employee benefits. There is also the automatic increase in salaries by statute.

There is an item here called central management services for $90,000, but I understand there is a corresponding — how can I put it? — bracketed figure for

$86,000. I think all that really means is that our occupancy is now going under central management services rather than under building occupancy. Am I correct in that, Mr. Hubbard?

D. Ryneveld: Other than asking for the funding to continue the person I hired this year, plus an additional analyst and an additional support staff, that's basically it. That's the difference in what I'm asking for this year over last year — until we meet again.

I can go on ad nauseam, and perhaps you might say: "Too late." I'm willing to answer any questions you might have.

J. Horgan: Thank you, Commissioner, for your presentation. It's nice to have a heads-up that more will be needed, assuming that we get leg. counsel to have something in the hopper for the spring.

I wanted to ask a question. It's more topical than anything else. You will be aware, of course, of the interest in Taser activity over the past number of weeks and months. I'm wondering if there's more complexity for you in issues where you may have to investigate the use of a Taser. If so, would that be more costly? Have the numbers gone up, or is it just the high-profile nature of the recent activity that's led me to conclude that this is a growing problem?

D. Ryneveld: I'm sure you will all agree that the last Taser incident, in news media–language, has had longer legs than any story I can recall in 30 years as counsel doing major murder trials and things like that. This story has captured not only the local public interest but national and international public interest.

This is not a novel proposition for my office. You may recall that in 2005, on the basis of a case out of Vancouver where a Taser was used and a gentleman died shortly afterwards, I requested the Victoria police department to do an external investigation into that file. That resulted in what was known as our 2005 Taser report. I didn't conduct it, but I ordered it to be conducted.

The purpose of all that was that instead of getting the police to simply investigate whether the Tasers were safe or not safe, I specifically wanted there to be a multidisciplinary panel of experts who could get together around a table like this and each of them give their views on what they call….

Well, we call it a Taser. It's the Thomas A. Swift electric rifle. It's a conducted energy device, or a CED. There are more models out there than just the Taser.

What we got was cardiologists, forensic pathologists, electrical engineers, emergency room physicians. There's a list of people — about eight or nine different disciplines of experts. We got them into a room, basically, to discuss these things — plus they did research from all over the world about existing research — put it all together and then come up with recommendations. Those recommendations found their way into the 2005 report, and it received fairly wide distribution.

Now, this is the long answer to a short question, but I think it's topical. I think you probably deserve this answer.

The Police Complaint Commissioner's office of this province was the first that I know of to get this kind of document into the public eye, with the idea that police services, police departments, would benefit from the knowledge gathered so far and hopefully train their officers in compliance with that.

But you've got to recognize that as a Police Complaint Commissioner, I do not approve weapons. I cannot ban weapons. I have no power other than to make recommendations and to distribute knowledge that has been gathered. The whole purpose of that report was to promote further study, because there were a lot of unanswered questions.

There've been other issues about whether or not the Taser, in that particular file that prompted the report, actually produced the amount of — for lack of a better word — voltage or kilojoules or whatever it was that the manufacturer said it did. So we've been looking, believe it or not, all over the world for a long time to find a lab or an agency that is capable of testing the machine or the instrument, as they say, to determine whether it really does produce that electric output. Up until now, we've not been successful in finding anyone who can test it.

I understand that the National Research Council or the police council are probably going to be a position in the next few months to test that instrument. Hopefully, we can then close that particular file. That file remains open. I won't close it until I know whether the death had anything to do with the Taser, whether the instrument was faulty, whether the officers used it contrary to then existing policy.

So, sir, after having given you that background, the answer to your question is that we have had a lot more interest in Tasers. It is time-consuming, even though it may not translate into a file. The current issue is RCMP, and you know the RCMP have their own oversight agency.

I'm hoping to get together with Mr. Kennedy, who is my counterpart for the RCMP, as we have already. I hope to propose that he and I launch a joint further study on the Taser so that we can make joint recommendations that our respective police departments….

If no one else is going to provide guidelines, then maybe we can provide guidelines so that failing to follow our guidelines would at least bring our investigation into play, if you know what I mean.

Right now all we've got is a report, but there are no consequences. I'm hoping to persuade Mr. Kennedy to join me in a further ordered study so that we can get some joint guidelines that are harmonious between the RCMP and municipal police in this province.

There's a lot of work, but it doesn't translate into: "Oh, open or close another file in my stats."

B. Bennett (Chair): We've got three other questioners, John. Maybe we should go around and see whether we have time.

First of all, are you aware that if more funds are needed later on because certain circumstances come, you can always come back to the committee for more funding? This has been for the last six years anyway, when I've been here sitting on the committee.

My other question, actually, is with the Taser issue. Is everybody doing their own investigation? I have heard this issue on the news all over North America.

Is there some possibility that maybe people from different parts of North America could get together, because they have the same issue, to try and find a solution together and share some of the information, knowledge or expertise they have so that we're not spending money all over and maybe having the same answer in different places with nobody talking to each other? Is there any possibility that maybe they can learn and set up a committee that provides expertise, at least from all different parts of Canada or something?

D. Ryneveld: Thank you for that question, and thank you also for that excellent recommendation.

It would be my hope that somebody does that, but you can appreciate that my particular function and mandate doesn't allow me to compel that kind of thing to happen. It is a small "p" political issue in the sense that those responsible for the federal Solicitor General and our provincial Solicitor General are in charge of those kinds of things.

I expect that what's going to happen is that each agency involved is doing their investigation because they feel that's a due-diligence test insofar as their agencies are involved. We understand that the federal government is doing an inquiry. I know that Mr. Kennedy, my counterpart for the CPC, the oversight body, is doing an investigation. My understanding is that the Solicitor General of this province has indicated that there may be some type of an inquiry as well, so we've got various agencies — six or seven or eight at last count — all wanting to look into this matter.

I agree, and all of them will. The Border Service Agency, I think, has got a report. The airport authority, likely. I agree with you that it would be a really good idea if we collectively got the benefit of all of their investigations and did a part 2 of our 2005 exercise, in which case we get all the experts in various disciplines — such as emergency room medicine, cardiology, electrics, all that kind of thing — in a room and come up with the definitive report.

H. Bloy: With your salaries you want to add two additional full-time employees this year.

D. Ryneveld: I need funding to continue the one I've already hired, which I've told you about. I need one more analyst and, shall we say, a less expensive, lower-end — as it were, like a clerk steno — function support staff.

H. Bloy: How much of this salary increase of $257,000 was mandated by the contract settlements, or is that just to cover those positions?

L. Hubbard: The general salary increase due to the public service for the existing staff amounts to $16,000. Of that $257,000, $11,000 is due to increments that are due for existing staff.

L. Hubbard: And $201,000 is for the extra positions. Even though Mr. Ryneveld has referred to two, in terms of the budget there are actually three FTEs involved next year because he's already paying for one out of savings in the current year.

H. Bloy: Okay. And the $19,000 was the legislated change to keep up with the Supreme Court.

L. Hubbard: That's right. The $19,000 is for the salary adjustment for the officers of the Leg. that are tied to the chief justices.

L. Hubbard: It includes a number of things, but primarily the change there is for the rent on the space that is acquired through ARES. Previously, that was paid under "Building occupancy." You'll see this similar offsetting amount in the other presentations as well.

When the rent was through BCBC as a Crown corporation, the financial accounting for the province required that to come out of STOB 75. With BCBC being converted back into the ministry, then it's charged against a central management services STOB.

If space was being rented directly, outside of ARES, then it would still show up under "Building occupancy" under STOB 75.

H. Bloy: Kind of for my clarification, do you recover no moneys for any reviews that you do for the Port Moody police force or New West, when you have to go in?

D. Ryneveld: No. The kind of job that we're in doesn't really allow for recovery unless we start charging people for things. I can't see how we can start charging complainants, nor can I see how we start charging police forces.

As a matter of fact, there are many times when I have to order an external police force to investigate another police force, and that has huge consequences for them — their budget, their travel, all those kinds of things. Part of the problem is that they sometimes say:

"Gee, our budget won't allow it. Will you pay our travel expenses?" I don't have a budget for that.

The savings…. How can I put it? I guess the cost back to me is not having to pay for investigations that I order. A couple of years ago I ordered the RCMP to do an investigation into a major case out of Vancouver. That cost close to a million dollars. That came out of the RCMP budget. Cost recovery? No, but at least I'm not spending any more money and coming to you and saying: "Gee, I have to do one of these investigations, and they've billed me for so much money."

Victoria police — a $41,000 expenditure on a major investigation they had to do. They had to swallow that whole amount. They could have billed me for it, and I would have had to say: "Sorry."

If the legislation says that I pay for it, fine. I'll come to you with a bigger budget for calling investigations.

The nature of the business simply does not contemplate cost recovery. That is just not the nature of the business.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): To follow up on the question from John Horgan, in the 2005 report that you mentioned, which I confess I haven't read, did you receive representations from the legal representatives of the manufacturers of the Taser?

Then the second question would be: do you receive representations from the manufacturers of the Taser as you investigate individual instances where there are complaints of Taser use? Does that add to the complexity and cost of those investigations?

D. Ryneveld: No, we do not. We have not. We've tried to make this an independent review. We would suspect that perhaps the manufacturer would be biased.

The whole point is to have non-conflicted agencies review this, quite apart from what the Taser manufacturing outfit says in their brochures about what this instrument is designed to do and what it can do.

We did not conclude that there was evidence that the Tasers caused death. What we did find is that when the Tasers were used, there were a number of instances thereafter when people did die.

But there's no causal link that has been shown yet between the use of the Taser and death. Often it could be what they call excited delirium. Sometimes it's the physical restraint that's involved. Sometimes it could be some other underlying medical reason.

What we cautiously recommended was no more than one application; that it preferably be in stun mode as opposed to probe mode; that if they plan to use it, there be arrangement for medical help within minutes, as it were.

We tried to recommend circumstances in which it should be used on the use-of-force continuum. I mean, it's not: "Drop the beer." Guy won't drop the beer. Zap. It shouldn't be used in those situations. It should be as an alternative in active resisting or active aggressive force, short of using your weapon.

Let's face it. The police have to have weapons at their disposal in order to maintain the peace. We give them everything from batons to pepper spray to guns with real bullets, and we expect them to use those in certain circumstances. But we expect them to use their discretion as to when they're used. There is a use-of-force continuum as to when it's appropriate and in what circumstances.

The problem with the Taser is that we need a use-of-force guideline that says when it is appropriate to use the Taser. Is it only as an alternative to discharging a gun, or should it be used as a lower-force weapon? That's why a lot more study needs to be done.

The 2005 report is not conclusive, but it certainly provided some guidelines which we had hoped would be followed in the interim. But to answer the question, I think, from two sources: yes, we really do need to have more study. My office wants to be involved in that, because I think that's part of my mandate — to provide policy and provide protection for our citizens.

B. Bennett (Chair): Mr. Ryneveld, back to the budget just for a minute. You've asked for basically a 21-percent increase from last year, which amounts to $321,000 more than you had last year. I would just like to get a response from you on the record with regard to….

You've explained already, I think, how that increase will be used with the three FTEs. I would like to get some comments from you as to whether there is any relationship between your office gearing up for the Josiah Wood report or whether this 21-percent increase is for the workload that you are estimating for the next few months, prior to any implementation of the Wood report.

I suppose the answer is: because the handwriting is on the wall in terms of police departments, and they already see what that report is, there has already been a movement afoot to start to implement some of these recommendations before they actually become legislation. In other words, power of persuasion by us, bolstered by Mr. Wood's report, has already started the process on a voluntary basis.

In other words, we're already doing some extra work that would not have been mandated under the previous Police Act. Part of the reason that we need FTEs in the interim is because we're already starting to get more work and more involvement.

They're giving us heads-up well in advance. They are giving us information about files while they are

ongoing. In other words, contemporaneous oversight is starting to happen, even though it's not yet legislated.

As you can appreciate, our work is expanding already in anticipation of this becoming legislation. Part of these two new analysts is to try to do the job and for us not to get further behind in terms of files opened and files closed.

The timeliness of our response is not satisfactory, in my view. It's not fair to the complainant and it's not fair to the respondent to have an investigation drag on and then for us to sit three or four months trying to get to the file to make a decision. It could go up to a year, and it's not fair for anybody to have that hanging over their head.

We want to have a turnaround as soon as possible on our decision as to whether the investigation was thorough and complete and whether or not the adjudication by the discipline authority is appropriate. Right now it's unacceptable, in my view. We're just not delivering the service that I want to deliver with the skeleton staff that I have to do it.

B. Bennett (Chair): What I hear you saying, then, is that the 21-percent increase goes both to improving the effectiveness and responsiveness of your office and also, to some extent that we're not quite sure of, to prepare for what we think is probably the inevitable, which is the implementation of the Wood report.

D. Ryneveld: Yes, that's right. And if you see fit to grant me my request now, it'll probably be two fewer positions that I will be asking for once the report is in place. In other words, it's sort of my anticipation…. I kind of need that now, but it'll be two fewer positions that I'll be asking for when it becomes legislation.

D. Ryneveld: Thank you very much. I appreciate your attention and the insightfulness of your questions.

B. Bennett (Chair): Members, if we could just take a very brief recess and allow the Ombudsman to come forward and take her seat. We'll just carry on and probably finish our meeting well ahead of schedule.

B. Bennett (Chair): Kim, welcome to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. We're fairly informal here, so I hope it's okay if I refer to you as Kim.

B. Bennett (Chair): Of course, my name is Bill Bennett, and you can refer to me however you want to.

Our practice is to allow you to make your submission and explain what you are proposing to do with your annual budget and then for the committee to ask a few questions.

K. Carter: Then, I'd be very happy to begin. As you will have noticed, of course, I am accompanied by someone who's practically an honorary member of your committee, Lanny Hubbard.

What I would do first of all is express my thanks to Lanny for his assistance. I will be mentioning him a little in the course of my submissions, because we are responsible for shared services provided to four officers of the Legislature. I will be explaining how critical Lanny is to that process, though you will already have gathered that from sitting here on Monday and Wednesday.

I come before you as the last of the four shared-services offices. I think that's logical, because the positions that support the shared services are located within the Office of the Ombudsman.

What I'd like to do is cover with you what we do, how things have changed a little in the past few years, how our office functions, our achievements, our goals and the funding options for achieving those goals. I am focusing on the funding, but I think, from your perspective, you will want to understand what it is that the funding is currently doing and what additional activities the proposals I've given to you would allow us to do.

As you're aware, of course, the Ombudsman's office has been around since 1979. The act has been essentially unchanged in its substance since that time. At the beginning it was just provincial ministries that were covered, but in 1993 the mandate was expanded to other public authorities. There are currently over 2,800. That also explains why, perhaps since it was 1979, the title is still "ombudsman," even though I don't quite easily fit into that definition.

The office has gone through different phases. My description right now is that currently we're in an upswing. Last time, for the first time in five years, we've seen an increase in the number of inquiries and complaints. That's not to say that it has rocketed up — indeed, if it did, that would be something of a stressor on the organization — but it has increased by about 10 percent.

Most of the work we do is done quite quietly and confidentially, as is set out in the act. I thought I would briefly share with you four of the results we've had that you will no doubt be unaware of or possibly be unaware of.

The first is a brief extract from a letter from a person whose complaint we didn't look at. It says:

I raise that because it touches on two issues that the committee may think about, which are: what about complaints that are not within your jurisdiction, and do you have any impact in those areas? What about complaints where you don't investigate them?

The second case involves the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and a disability benefit issue. In that case, disability benefits were discontinued for a period of time because the person who came to us acquired some money and was deemed ineligible. The ministry, from our perspective, failed to inform this person of her entitlement to establish a trust for her funds as well as the right to seek reconsideration of the decision to deny her benefits.

Her benefits were eventually reinstated. In all, the cheque that was issued to the person was in the amount of $20,578.24, which is equal to the amount she would have received during the period she was deemed ineligible, plus $3,000 for expenses she incurred during that period.

A third case has to do with school boards. This case was one where there was an Ombudsman investigation. In essence, the summary of the case runs as follows. While school boards have the authority to close schools, they are also required by the School Act to consult with the public on any proposed closures.

This office chose to investigate the public consultation process for school closures to find out if the process was fair and effective in providing the public with an opportunity to express their views and if the process allowed for their views to be properly considered when it came time to make a decision regarding a school closure.

In response to our investigation and recommendations, the school district made a number of significant changes to its policies regarding school closures. The new policy clearly outlines the process that the school district will follow in consulting with the public and opportunities for those who might be affected by a decision of the board to make their views known.

We concluded that the revised policy provided clarity on how public consultations would be conducted and would provide a consistent approach to gathering public feedback and effectively using that information as part of the decision-making process for the proposed school closures.

The final one is what I affectionately call the snacks-for-teenagers situation. This was a complaint that came to us out of a youth custody facility. Our office regularly visits the province's three youth custody centres as part of our mandate to ensure fair treatment. During one of our visits to a youth custody centre, the youths in the centre complained to our officers about the quantity of food at the centre and about the process followed for distributing extra food during mealtime.

We investigated the adequacy of the centre's response to the concerns raised by residents about food quantity. In response to the complaints and our investigation, the ministry conducted a review of the food services. They pointed out that the food provided at all three custody centres met or exceeded the Canada food guide standards. However, from our perspective we had some further questions.

To address the concerns expressed, the ministry implemented some changes. Firstly, staff at all three custody centres now have access to food they can provide to residents when requested. That change has been incorporated in the provincial policy manual. Secondly, in the particular youth custody centre that was the source of complaints, they have added an additional snack in the afternoon of fruit cups or granola bars to bridge the gap between lunch and dinner.

I raise those simply because over 95 percent of the work we do you won't hear about. We deal with individuals, we deal with small groups, and those are the kinds of resolutions that we achieve.

Our mandate has been essentially the same since 1993. We've had a couple of authorities added and a couple of authorities taken away. You will have seen that what I have done in the organization charts in the submission indicates to you those positions that are shared-support positions within our office and those that are what I describe as OA, or Ombudsman activities. Currently, of the 40 positions 11 are shared-services positions, and 29 are Ombudsman activity positions.

About 25 percent of our staff have less than three years' experience, and that's mostly in the investigation side. The background of our investigators varies. We have lawyers, social workers, engineers, foresters. We actually used to have an ex-police officer, but he was headhunted from us by an organization that we'd investigated to head up their program of reorganization and reform.

Our intake is estimated to be 7,100 this year. As I've said, that's approximately a 10-percent increase over last year, and I would expect that to continue. Our investigations have, over the years…. The percentage has increased, and we're now between about 27 percent and 30 percent of matters that go to our investigators.

Over the past five years we have gone both down and up in terms of staff and, as I've indicated, down in terms of overall intake. Now we're beginning to go up again. In addition, what I have tried to do in the 18 months since I've been appointed as the Ombudsman is to incorporate timely, comprehensive and useful systemic investigations into our office practices.

I have copies of two of our reports from 2007 here. You all will have received copies, so I'm not going

to give you an additional one unless you'd like one, because I have a very active environmental committee who will chastise me for giving away paper if it's unnecessary.

We have done one on the victims of crime program and another one on the Lottery Corporation. We are completing the second part of one on Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance issues, with a special focus on persons with persistent multiple barriers to employment. We're engaged in one on drinking water. I have a final one that I'm not yet in a position to identify to you because there is still another agency that we are going to be contacting and consulting with.

I have a number that I would say are essentially banked; that is, they are areas which, from my perspective, would benefit from a systemic review. But I have had higher priorities, and I have limited resources.

Most of our work is provincial ministries. It varies between 45 percent and 55 percent. Last year it was about 46 percent. Surprisingly, we have fewer complaints in some areas than you might expect. Health authorities is a relatively minor area of the number of complaints that come to us, in part — my discovery in some of my tours around the province — because people just don't know that we are there to be complained to, to be asked to review a matter if someone feels that they have not been treated fairly.

I've listed on page 5 of my submission some of our significant authorities. I'll briefly review them for you. This is in terms of who we deal with most regularly. There's the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the Workers Compensation Board, ICBC, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing, B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

Just with the last one, I'll point out that it's the homeowner's grant program they administer that tends to attract most of the issues.

The current organization of the office is set out on page 24 of the submission. As I've indicated to you, what we've tried to do is highlight for you the shared services positions. In my background, from my old jobs, is an attachment to acronyms, so I call them SSPs. In essence, they are people who are in our office who provide the services to the four offices.

First and foremost is Lanny. I have to tell you that from my perspective, Lanny is actually a provincial resource as opposed to simply a resource for the offices of the Legislature, in part because every time a new officer of the Legislature is installed or things are considered, someone ends up calling Lanny about a question — anything from funding through to salaries through to who is going to provide this or that.

Those shared services are finance, administration, purchasing, building supports and system supports. Literally everything, as we know, from budget submissions to "There's no toilet paper in the toilet" will end up on the administration side of things.

On the Ombudsman activities side, you will see there's a director, a manager and an intake team, two managers and two investigative teams and a couple of positions that provide support to the executive overall. That is, first and foremost, the person who organizes my life and assures I get here and other places in a timely fashion.

We have a very active performance measurement program, as you'll see in pages 12, 13 and 14 of the submission. I think that's probably important for you to know, because when it comes to asking for funding, people usually like to know about results as well.

The first thing I would tell you is that as of last year we do not decline any files. In the years previous we had to have a situation where some files were declined, unless they involved health and safety issues, or they went into a holding queue, and we would do them when we could fit them in.

This involved areas such as hospitals and health authorities, school boards and schools, professional associations and local government. Those were areas where both the public and the organizations knew that we had, at best, very limited availability to review matters. We have now gone back fully into those areas, and they are starting to expand again as people realize that we are available.

Our measures are that we aim to have 70 percent of our files dealt with within 90 days and 90 percent within a year. We have in the past year had a slight increase in the time lines. They're still within what I consider acceptable, but that's what happens as you get to the outer limit of your capacity.

As I like to say, you can actually do everything with one person. It'll only take you 200 years to do it. I mean, it's not impossible.

The other thing in managing the caseloads, something that we're working on, is reflecting the complexity and diversity. As we work with organizations to develop their complaints resolution processes and make them more comprehensive, it means the cases that actually end up with us are the really, really difficult ones. I'll perhaps give you an example.

I was dealing with a college recently. The president was talking to me and saying how things have changed in the past few years and how they had established better complaints resolution processes. In particular, they now had a special senior committee that dealt with procedural issues. So if somebody's concern was that the process was unfair, they actually had initiated an internal committee to review that and perhaps recommend and make changes to their process.

It's very good from our perspective. But what that means is that when things actually do end up with us, they're pretty complex, because they've gone through those processes.

My goals last year. I know that some people were here last year on the committee, but I'll just say that what I indicated to you as my first and foremost was outreach and communication. We have done environmental surveys in 2006, and in essence, only about a

third of the people in the province knew what the Office of the Ombudsman did. That's a significant concern to me.

In some cases, the reasons may be because of linguistic barriers. In other cases, though, I've had situations where people who have lived in the province all their lives just have an unawareness of what our office does.

A few weeks ago I was talking to some representatives, delightful people, from an organization in the Kootenay area called the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Seniors. They had contacted me because I had been on a tour in the area. When I explained our mandate, they said: "Well, that's great to know, because we thought you dealt with consumer matters as an ombudsman."

There are really a lot of people out there who don't realize that there are options available to them once they've exhausted the internal resolution processes within public authorities. So my target last year was to increase outreach and communication. I've done that.

You will all have been beneficiaries or victims of that process in terms of getting brochures and binders. I've talked not only to authorities but also to not-for-profit groups, advocacy groups, service groups, senior groups and community leaders.

I also think part of our outreach program is our systemic reports, because people look at them and realize that there is a role for the Office of the Ombudsman and will come to us with matters, saying: "We didn't really realize you had anything to do in the area, but since we've now discovered it, we'd like to bring this to your attention."

I guess one thing I would say is that my ability in this area has been handicapped by the fact that I didn't get an outreach and education and communication position funded last year. We were able to take advantage of some skills in our office, but not surprisingly, that person honed their skills and then got hired away to somewhere, after one of our systemic reports that they made an important contribution to, where there was a full-time FTE to do this stuff.

In terms of consultation, we're increasing our consultation with government and other public authorities so that we can look at proposals before they go out and perhaps make suggestions on how they can improve them. We've also completed a trial early resolution project — that is, trying to resolve as many matters as simply and quickly as possible, rather than sending them to an investigator.

My concern is, in particular, about underserved communities, and I have mentioned to you communities where English is not a first language. I am looking at building a relationship with not-for-profit service providers based in Vancouver and Richmond to try and use the services that they provide and also to make sure that the communities they serve are aware of our office.

I did provincial outreach tours, and we have completed two systemic reports that were made public. Two are close to completion.

As I've said, again, I received two positions last year, so my original estimate of four…. I think we've met the goal with what we received.

The goals for 2009-2011, you will have read, are: an early resolution team; a multilingual outreach capacity; more relationships with social program delivery organizations; and more interaction with and accessibility to public authorities, especially the ones that are significant from our perspective.

I believe I can comfortably handle an increase of 10-percent intake a year without overly stressing the office, but not more than that. Again, I'm looking for a greater impact for individual investigations and four useful and timely systemic reports.

I've given a series of options to the committee. I will deal with them — first of all with the things that are in all the options, because I think that's simplest.

The first is the shared services. I believe that's a very useful activity. It's efficient. Frankly, it's highly dependent on organization and leadership. In that regard, it's Lanny that I'm talking about.

You may or may not be aware that Lanny has come to the stage where he can retire if he wishes. I am looking for a way to make him an offer — I always try and phrase it as "he will not want to" rather than as "he cannot" refuse — to keep him with us for a few more years, because it really is a situation where the shared services have developed and are highly dependent on him.

I've gone through the division with you and what's covered by the shared services positions. In terms of the increase in the shared services positions, you will find that I have set out…. This is on pages 20, 24 and 25, where the options are found.

Part of the reason for the increase is that we've moved from 57 to 77 people who are being administered, and when you have more people, they do require a little more administration. We've moved from three to four offices, which are sharing shared services. They may have differences in contracts, purchasing and hiring procedures, all of which have to be factored in for the shared services positions.

We've moved from two fixed locations to five. I can certainly tell you that part of the excitement is trying to fit people around Victoria in little cubbyholes as we expand a little. It's quite a challenge. I'll mention, and you'll see there, that we do have a long-term plan for the shared services offices to try and co-locate somewhere and reduce the challenge of having our systems people running from building to building with an umbrella and a piece of computer equipment under their arm.

There are two extra positions that you will see there — two additional positions that are shared services. Also, as part of the costing, we have an increase in responsibility for some existing positions, with a consequential increase in salary costs.

I've separated these out because, in all fairness, this is not something that is an Ombudsman issue. It's a "shared services for the officers of the Legislature" issue and needs to be considered, in my view, in that way.

In all the options there are certain things that stand outside of any increase in what we do. I'll just briefly review those for you.

General salary increases and associated chargeback are $61,000. Increments and associated chargebacks are $79,000. That includes projections for the Ombudsman's salary, which is, happily, beyond my control. Occupancy charges — an increase of $13,000 right now. Professional services are $40,000. In essence, that's roughly 50 percent of option 1; about 32 percent, I think, of option 2; and about 30 percent of option 3 moneys.

Option 1, which I've presented to you, is really a short-term consolidation and maintenance package. It puts a little more emphasis on outreach education and communication and, frankly, gives my office the person we need to do that stuff. At the moment I'm cutting and pasting with a lot of different people within the office to try and cover this off.

What I didn't mention from last year, and which I should, is the success of our student program. Last year you gave us $50,000 for one student position. I have managed to cut and paste that into summer students and co-op students. We've had two so far, and we're going to have another one for this spring session.

It's an unparalleled success. That's my only description of what it is. It's an excellent investment — not only the long-term attractiveness, hopefully, for young people who see what it's like to work in government, with the machinery of government, which is what we work with, but also excellent for our office in terms of getting things done. I do feel a little guilty when I have to use the students sometimes for communications support.

Systemic. Last year the committee authorized two positions for systemic. What I have done is rotated those positions. There have always been two people in the positions, but I've rotated throughout the office. In part, that's because I'm using this as a way of building skills in the office.

Systemic investigations have particular stresses and strains and particular approaches which are really useful for people to learn and which they can then apply to the individual cases they deal with. What I've done is rotated people through. It's a good thing. The current joke in the office is that after a systemic investigation what happens is that then the investigators get sick. Then they have to go on a long holiday to recover, and then, as I've said, if you're not careful, someone from the office gets recruited somewhere else.

I think that's still a good approach, but what we do need is some stability. The third position that I'd asked for and that I do want to have is a permanent person in there who will be able to be the continuity and to organize these things more effectively.

The other thing in option 1 is a modest expansion of intake team capacity. You will have read the submission and will say, no doubt: "Well, if you add one person in option 1, can you not do what you can do in options 2 and 3, because you're only really adding the same number of people?"

The answer, really, is organization, policy, leadership and development. If I want to change an intake team into an early resolution team, I have to give people training. There has to be some policy development and leadership. I can't do that just by adding one person at the entry level.

Option 2 is the option which I've identified as building on our foundation and progress. It allows us to organize an early resolution team. I'm happy to tell you a little bit more about that if you have questions.

In essence, it's building on staff we have in the office who've got experience, to give them more discretion to resolve matters at an earlier stage. Instead of referring these matters to investigators and using their investigative skills, it's to put those into an early resolution team where my staff perhaps have less training experience overall but can handle these kinds of matters.

As I've indicated, I would like to augment the systemic team. In option 2, in addition to that one position which would clearly be a senior investigative junior management position, there would also be a position for doing production editing and organizing. That's a critical part of doing a good, timely systemic investigation.

You can do a good systemic investigation over a longer time, but if you want to make it timely, you need someone who's doing the production, pulling things together, organizing, editing, etc.

Really, you will see that what I'm looking for there is another director position so I can group outreach, intake, early resolution and systemic together. I think that investigations are a critical part of our work and need to have attention devoted to them. I also think there's a natural affinity between the outreach, intake, early resolution and systemics.

If they can be grouped together, then that will be more efficient. It will more quickly identify issues that would be suitable for systemic investigations. That's why that is my approach.

Option 3 is basically all of option 2, plus a Vancouver office. We had a Vancouver office until 2004, I believe, when we closed. We've been operating with some of the investigators who are in that office telecommuting — that is, living in the lower mainland but operating as telecommuters.

That works until they retire or they leave. Then you start to replace positions, and you have to replace them where you have the office. You can't train people when they're not with you. We've had one retirement, and the person has been replaced here in Victoria. I'm looking ahead, and there are really three issues that lead me to make this recommendation to the committee.

The first one is outreach and communication. It is much more difficult to be in constant communication and respond to issues from the Greater Vancouver–lower mainland area when you don't have a fixed facility there that people operate out of. You don't have a centre of operations.

The second one is of course, as I've said, that there will clearly be a movement over time with the people that we have there. As they retire or move on, we'll be replacing them. So we will lose more and more of what connection we have.

Finally — and this is something that concerns me because I'm looking at it — many of the communities that are underserved are located in the Vancouver and lower mainland area — communities of newer people to British Columbia, people for whom English is not a first language. We don't recruit from those people when we're having positions here in Victoria.

As time goes by, frankly, one of the best ways to reach out to communities is when somebody says: "Do you know that so-and-so's son or daughter has been hired by the Ombudsman's office?" And someone says: "What the heck is the Ombudsman's office?" Things go out from there.

Frankly, from a demographic point of view, both in serving communities and in terms of hiring people from those communities, if we do not open an office in the Vancouver–lower mainland area, then we will, over the passage of probably four or five years, cut ourselves off completely from those areas.

I have to say I considered very carefully whether to put forward option 3 for two reasons. One is that it's going to be a lot of wear and tear on the management here, because we're going to be having to go over constantly to the lower mainland. I'm not suggesting that we build a whole duplicate office over there, so we'll be providing that.

Secondly, there are always other competing issues. For essentially the same amount of money, I could ask you for six additional investigative positions. I wouldn't have the backlog I have of things I think should be looked at that I don't have the resources for.

My concern is that if this isn't addressed now, then it would be very difficult to address it in the future once people have left all the positions that are currently in the lower mainland and everyone is in Victoria. Then it's not a question of rebuilding; it's a question of starting again from scratch. That's why I'm coming to you now with that recommendation.

B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Kim, for your very comprehensive submission.

Members, maybe just to help you frame your questions, I'll sum up where we're at in terms of the numbers. Last year this office asked for $4.445 million and was given $4.214 million, so they were given $231,000 less than they asked for last year. This year option 1 is $4.671 million — that's on page 19 — which is a 10-percent increase over last year. Under option 2, their ask is a 15-percent increase over last year. Under option 3, their ask is a 22-percent increase over last year.

In comparison to the other officers of the Legislature who have been in to see us, the asks are in the same ballpark in terms of percentages, essentially, as what other officers have asked. Some are a little more; some are a little less. So that's where we're at, just strictly in terms of the numbers.

J. Horgan: This is, I guess, to Lanny. I know this is the farewell tour. I hope we'll see you again next year, but I haven't asked you direct questions, so I'm going to do it right now.

The Chair has just said that option 3 is a 22-percent lift. Could you tell me what percentage of that is for shared services? I think the Ombudsman made a good point, that a portion of the increase is, in fact, going to be a benefit to the other three officers.

L. Hubbard: Correct. You're asking about the percentage in option 3? It's 4.17 percent of option 3.

B. Bennett (Chair): Can I just follow up on that? Members, you might be able to help me. I'll look to the Clerks, as well, if you have anything to offer here.

With the other officers that are sharing services with you, I thought they also asked for more money for shared services — did they not?

L. Hubbard: Yeah, I can explain that. Basically, there's a chargeback, so the amount they increased on theirs is shown on the recovery line, on the detailed pages on ours. It's an internal transfer in STOB 88, the internal recoveries. That number I gave you, the 4.17-percent increase, is net of recovery.

We did do an adjustment this year, as Kim mentioned. We set up the shared services about four years ago now, based on the FTE distribution that existed at that time. Since that time, all we applied was the 2-percent increase in general salary. So we increased a little bit, but we hadn't accounted for the growth in the offices over the last four years.

This year I did a recalculation, in terms of the percentages, and a redistribution. There's been an increase that the others had to ask for, which was included in their budgets, and then it shows up as a recovery in this budget.

B. Bennett (Chair): For the benefit of members, the $90,000 for central services that the police commissioner is asking for shows up in your budget as a…. What did you call it again?

So the 4-point-something-percent increase in your budget is net of all the specific asks of the other officers.

L. Hubbard: It's net of the amount that is recovered, but don't confuse what are called the central management support services. That's not the shared services part. Central management, in the case of these offices, is almost totally to the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services and specifically to ARES for the space accommodation. It's leased through them.

The location of the funding for the shared services in the other offices is in STOB 50. We locate it there as a

salary because, basically, it's offsetting the salaries of the offices. Rather than trying to distribute 80 percent in salaries and 10 percent in overhead for office space and so on, we locate it all just within the salary component and then transfer that out.

It goes out of salaries in the other offices, and it comes in, in the Ombudsman's budget in STOB 88, in internal recoveries.

K. Carter: I was going to say that with the shared services, as I've said to you, I think it's important. It does very much fall on Lanny, just based on years of experience. I'd truthfully be happier if I was contributing to shared services, rather than having it within the office, because occasionally we'll let Lanny go on holiday and things like this. The issues ultimately end up with our office, so from my perspective, there's a little bit of wear and tear on us, because we have to provide.

The other thing I have to say is that you can become truly pedantic on this and say that really, we should be putting this percentage of the space that the person who provides the shared services occupies to someone else. We don't carry it to that extent, inasmuch as it's obviously a really good benefit to the province. It works well for all the offices.

Truthfully, from my perspective, it's a very cost-efficient and effective way of dealing with these issues. It's something of an extra burden for our office, but it started with us, and logically, we're the ones to continue it.

R. Hawes: I have two questions. The first is just a quick explanation. STOB 75, "Building occupancy," goes from $290,000 to zero, which I assume moves up to STOB 59. Would that be correct? Is it dollar for dollar? Is that what's moving?

L. Hubbard: That's correct. The building occupancy, as I think I mentioned with the previous presentation…. When it went to BCBC as a Crown corporation, it came out of STOB 75. Now that BCBC was converted back and rolled back into a ministry, the financial accounting systems of the province require that that be accounted for under central management support services.

L. Hubbard: It's like $295,000 next year for the existing space. It was a very marginal increase year over year, because the leases are in place. For some of the other offices it's actually going up a little bit because, as the Merit Commissioner mentioned, she's having to take on some additional space. That's being leased at current market rates, as opposed to two or three years ago.

K. Carter: We're actually taking over the space she's currently in, which has increased our costs a little bit.

R. Hawes: My second question is a general question. With respect to the Vancouver office and what would happen if you weren't re-establishing a physical office there…. People who live in the north or the Okanagan or the Kootenays, I'm assuming, access your offices on line, by telephone or whatever through Victoria, probably.

R. Hawes: I'm wondering, then, why it would be more tragic for people in Vancouver to access your offices in exactly the same way as somebody who lives in Cranbrook or Prince George.

K. Carter: I'm not sure it's any more tragic. What I would say there is that from my perspective, if you look historically at our office, the percentage of people who access us from the Greater Vancouver–lower mainland area is much lower. When I talk to people, I always say that three explanations spring to mind: that everyone in the lower mainland is deliriously happy….

K. Carter: That's the explanation that is adopted in the Greater Vancouver–lower mainland area. Outside of that, sometimes people say: "Take out the 'happy' part."

The second explanation is that public authorities are much more efficient in the lower mainland. There are certainly authorities that look to adopt that explanation as well.

The third one, and the one that seems to be substantiated, is that we are not reaching certain communities. Frankly, in the office we haven't statistically reached those communities. There are lots of challenges. That's why I am trying to build up relationships with some of the social service agencies who do have relationships with those communities.

It is hard to overcome a family background where, if you complain about government, you don't get a letter of apology or a restitution cheque and you get a knock on the door in the middle of the night. You don't overcome that with a brochure. You really have to be able to reach out.

From my perspective, one of the best ways to reach out is to have access to the demographics of the lower mainland, which I think is a little different from other areas of the province, and to be able to hire qualified people who come from these communities. It gives you a system of accessing into those communities that you don't have elsewhere.

In terms of people calling and the investigations being done, it will make no difference to the quality of the investigation whether the investigator is in Victoria or Vancouver. As I have said, from my perspective, I would be doing a disservice if I did not identify this issue now, when it can be resolved by using positions that are over there.

If you wait four or five years, then there may be few or no people there. At the very best, you're going

to incur lots of costs in uprooting people, if it's desirable to do this. You'd also lose people whose families are located in an area and don't want to move. That's the issue for us right now. We know that there are people who apply to our competitions and who say: "But do I have to move to Victoria?" The answer is yes.

R. Hawes: Just as a supplementary. For your outreach even now, are you in regular contact, then, with the advocates for those communities that you say are difficult to reach? There are community advocates out there, and I'm wondering if they are aware of your service and what you can do for that population. Are they not, then, out there advocating for you and conducting outreach for you?

K. Carter: I don't think they would do it for us. They would do it for their communities.

What I would say is yes, I am doing whatever I can to reach out to those people. I can tell you that some of the response is that they would like the opportunity to have someone who they could meet with. I'm using people who are over in the lower mainland to do presentations. I go over and do this. It's a small percentage of what could be done if we actually had a foundation there.

As I've said, it's like anything else. I will do absolutely everything I can for the goals I have set out and with the resources I've got. My likelihood of achieving significant progress is influenced by the 24-hours-a-day rule and things like that.

D. Hayer: We had a chance to sit down over the summer, I think, or in the fall. One of the issues we discussed at that time was that British Columbia is a very diverse province. You have a lot of people from all over the world and many different languages spoken in our province.

When the Finance Committee went, we provided some brochures in different languages, because the minister had tried over the last four or five years to get in with different communities. So I'm happy to hear that you're going to try to make sure all the different communities are reached, maybe sometimes using different languages there.

On the other hand, I was at another presentation where somebody said they tried to use more virtual offices, where people can work from their homes or other places and which are also environmentally-friendly. They say it also saves some money, and at the same time, people are more productive. They're not wasting time in travel time.

Is your office looking at the possibility of some of those examples too? If they are, how can you reach more areas without them having to come to downtown or somewhere else? From Surrey, just across the Port Mann Bridge, my colleagues will tell you — and my office is not that far — that it sometimes takes one and half hours or one and a quarter hours, which is a five-minute drive. By the time people get to the office, they get frustrated. So the virtual offices might be more helpful to be more productive, at the same time serving those communities.

K. Carter: Well, first of all, since I visit Vancouver regularly, I can assure you that I have some idea of what it's like driving around, particularly at certain times of the day or in certain areas.

We do, do that. In essence, we have telecommuting, which is full-time telecommuting, from the lower mainland right now, and also, we have what's known affectionately in our office as Victoria telecommuting. I pointed out to you that we have a real space crunch here, so we have people who share offices right now in Victoria. They come in two days a week and then three days a week, and their partner comes in the alternate time. That allows us to shoehorn two people into one office and also helps the environment.

I think the answer with the virtual office is that we actually have that. We have with the on-line and also with our telephone calls. The concern I have, as I've said, is that when you look down the line, it's difficult to do outreach when you don't have a permanent basis. Secondly, we'll be doing it with people who are located in Victoria. I think it does make a difference in the hiring practices that we're going to engage in, in the next four to five years. So it's more that.

Certainly, I think we've adopted those things you've raised, and we would like to expand them in terms of linguistics. Right now we only have our brochures in five languages. For me, the challenge is much more. How do you access those communities? You can do a lot of things virtually. Sometimes it's not the same, and you need to have that augmented by an actual presence.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Just to pursue this same line of questioning. The difference, then, between option 2 and option 3 in terms of cost is $325,000. I'm looking at the second column on page 19, under the 2008-2009 estimates. That's the difference between $5,198, if my math is correct, and…. So $325,000.

K. Carter: You're correct, and it is a very modest increase. What it would mean is that we would look to use the investigators who are located in the lower mainland but have them as partial telecommuters. We'd take advantage of the situation we've created here in Victoria, and we would be adding a management position and a support position, which would be the salary increase.

We would be looking for space. It also includes the costs of extra travel because, as I've said, from my point of view, the senior management here would have to go over regularly to that office. So that's really what that difference is.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): As I understand the proposal, it's not only simply to provide that outreach to the lower mainland, for example, where the MLA for Surrey-Tynehead and I both represent Surrey constituencies, but within the Fraser Health region, which

encompasses most of the communities south of the Fraser and up the valley. It's fully one-third of the population of the province.

Your long-term goal is to change the ability of your office to recruit staff members who are perhaps more broadly representative of the population of the province. I think the Merit Commissioner, in her submission, pointed out that the public service is at this stage somewhat less than representative of the population of the province as a whole.

Is that part of the goal you are aiming for by establishing this office? On the surface, simply opening an office doesn't seem, necessarily, terribly compelling. If I understand you correctly, I think you're using that as a strategy for a broader purpose.

L. Hubbard: No. I just want to illustrate an example of that. We invited some folks from one of the ministries — I can't recall which one now — to our workshop a year ago. The ministry sent a young lady who was terribly enthusiastic and would have been an excellent Ombudsman officer — a member of a visible minority group.

I spoke to her, and she was very interested in coming to work for our office. The last competition we had, we brought it to her attention. She said: "You know, I would give almost anything to be able to work for your office, but I can't move to Victoria."

Just before we terminate the formal part of our meeting here, I did have one thing I wanted to ask the two of you. What are you doing to prepare for the inevitable loss of corporate memory when Lanny does decide that he's going to retire?

K. Carter: Lanny actually is retiring. He's got more than 35 years of service. As the committee will realize, he's actually pretty good with figures, so he's done some calculations. He came to me, and we spoke about it. Then I went out and talked to the other officers of the Legislature and got them quite agitated by the thought that Lanny was retiring as well.

What we're hoping, as I said, is that I can appropriately work out something so that Lanny would be happy to come back and work with us for another two to three years. For some reason, his description is that he thinks we're interesting still. I can only say that that's great. Some days are really, really interesting. He might pass on those.

That's the plan. And then two things. We are looking at the idea of, in the future, bringing one or two people in to kind of shadow Lanny and have a look at the job and to let us have a look at them. That's what we will have to develop.

As I've said, to some degree, actually, the efficiency of the shared services rests on the fact that it's been pretty well-developed. Lanny is not only a human resource specialist. He's a systems guy.

The systems people could come in to me and say: "We need this thingamajig, because otherwise the computer will crash and you won't have any data." I would probably say: "Oh my God. Go out and get it." Lanny, on the other hand, talks machine language back to them and can make sure that we really need the big thingamajig as opposed to the little one.

We've got a plan. I hope to keep Lanny. You will see mentioned at the very end our long-term plan for consolidating a move for all of our offices into some space here in Victoria for the Victoria offices. I would desperately like Lanny to be involved in that. It's going to be an onerous process, but we're planning ahead now.

We're doing the same thing for Lanny. He's irreplaceable. On the other hand, he has got the entitlement to leave at some time, so we are trying to do some career succession planning.

B. Bennett (Chair): Very good. Thank you very much, Kim and Lanny, on behalf of the committee. Apparently, we have one more question.

R. Hawes: Perhaps not a question you wanted to hear. I'm just curious. You've given us three options. There actually always is a fourth option, which would be just a status quo budget for last year. What would that mean?

K. Carter: What that would mean is, I think reason-ably, fewer systemic investigations. There won't be as much outreach, so what will happen is that the people who are unaware of the office and who are still dealing with the frustrations of not having an independent office to look at things will continue to deal with those frustrations.

I suspect you will find that there are pressures from groups who say, "We need someone who can do this," and, "You should create an ombudsman for this special purpose and that special purpose and another special purpose," in part because they don't know that we exist and that they can come to us. I think that investigations will, after a short period, start to get longer.

One of the things that I think is critical for us is…. We essentially try and serve as an example to other parts of the government for how things should be done. If we don't have someone who responds in a timely manner to things, then it's hard for us to tell other organizations that that is inherently part of fairness and that they should be doing it. So those things will slip.

Frankly, you can have an Ombudsman's office, as I've said, with half a dozen people. It doesn't do very much, but people feel that they've got one. The cost of setting up other offices in order to address concerns which, quite frankly, could be handled by our office with the correct resources is going to be much higher.

My description of us — and I'll take a moment since the question is there…. People say: "What do you do?" I say that there is a machinery of government. In many ways what we are is the maintenance person. Complaints serve as highlighting that there are drips, that there are problems, so sometimes we go around and patch pipes. Sometimes we see that there are enough little drips that perhaps the pipe should be thoroughly reviewed to see if it should be changed. That's the kind of job we do.

As you take out the resources from the office, we tend to focus more and more on just response and individual complaints. What that means is that instead of getting something fixed once for 100 people, we'll do it again and again, so it becomes less and less productive.

B. Bennett (Chair): Noting the time and noticing that there are no further questions, I will thank you very much again for your presentation and for your responses to our questions.

Lanny, on behalf of the committee, thank you, too, for your service to all of these offices and to the Legislative Assembly.

B. Bennett (Chair): Members, if we can just sit tight until Kim and Lanny are able to get their stuff together, we'll get right into an in-camera session and finalize our recommendations.

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

Committee Staff:	Josie Schofield (Committee Research Analyst) Jeremy Wood (Committee Researcher)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES