2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

3 p.m.

Douglas Fir Committee Room

Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

Present: Randy Hawes, MLA (Chair); Bruce Ralston, MLA (Deputy Chair); Harry Bloy, MLA; Dave S. Hayer, MLA; John Horgan, MLA; Richard T. Lee, MLA; Diane Thorne, MLA; John Yap, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: Robin Austin, MLA; John Rustad, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 3:04 p.m.

2.The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:

3. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to discuss its draft report to the House. (John Yap, MLA)

4. The Committee met in-camera from 3:53 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

5. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 4:11 p.m.

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

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Issue No. 93

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 2223 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2008

The committee met at 3:04 p.m.

[R. Hawes in the chair.]

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay, we'll call this meeting to order. This commences the process of the annual review of the budgets of the independent officers of the Legislative Assembly. We're starting today with the Police Complaint Commissioner.

Before we start, I would like to just preface the discussion that we're going to have with, I guess, my own thoughts. We are looking today, as we all know, at a time of…. I guess I'll call it economic volatility. Certainly, we know what's happening to revenues in government. We know what's happening right across the province and the country.

[1505]

With that in mind, that's going to, I think — I hope — temper all of the discussions we have and, hopefully, lead us to the right conclusions on behalf of all taxpayers in this province.

With that, I will throw it open to the commissioner, and on we go.

Office of the
Police Complaint Commissioner

D. Ryneveld: Well, hon. Members, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity of coming before you again, even with that preamble.

I am, like all British Columbians, mindful of the fact that things are perhaps different today than they were a year ago when I sat here.

R. Hawes (Chair): Or perhaps last week.

D. Ryneveld: Perhaps, yes. Absolutely. We're all aware of that.

You'll be happy to know that my request today will probably be in keeping with the views that you may have about lawful and just and appropriate expenditures by government, from my office in particular. I'm going to assume that you've had the benefit of reading my budget submission, which was circulated last week.

As you know, I have here with me Mr. Hubbard, who's probably more familiar to you than I am, in the sense that Mr. Hubbard appears for four of the legislative officers from year to year. He's been persuaded to come back and assist us again. You'll see him for the other three offices that I co-locate with and have shared services with.

I start by talking about them, because when you look at my budget proposal, it may appear to you that I am asking for an increase. But you have to look at that increase as to what it represents. The good news is that whatever is reflected in my increase request will be less in my fellow officers' requests.

Let me explain that, if I may. Mr. Hubbard can give you his particulars, but let me give you the overview as it's been explained to me.

In a nutshell, when I took over in 2003, our office was a stand-alone office in Vancouver. We had just come out of a situation, I think, very much like we find ourselves in today, in the sense that before I took office, government had made a cut of 35 percent — I believe it was — across the board.

When I took office, with only six weeks left on my lease and my staff completely gone, I had to make a decision. I spoke to the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner, and collectively we thought what we needed to do was enter into shared services. I had to join with them, so I moved the office from Vancouver to Victoria, and we were able to get into shared services and co-location, which was what the government wanted us to do. It has worked very, very well for us.

At the time we were such a small office that they took sympathy on me, I think, and made an assessment as to what my share of the shared services would be. That assessment — or apportionment, shall we say — of what my share of those expenses would be has remained fairly constant, including last year.

This year, however, they have made a more realistic assessment not only of me but of the Privacy Commissioner and of the Merit Commissioner, and have reallocated my share of the 13, I believe it is, support staff that we mutually share — my share of office space, library, reception, all of those kinds of things — to the extent that my share of it has virtually doubled.

[1510]

I think that's $80,000-some-odd that is being assessed to me, and rightfully so. I'm not arguing, but it's not like it's an increase that I have any choice over. These are existing services. They're just apportioning that to me rightfully, but that means that the Ombudsman will have $80,000 less, because she used to and Howard Kushner, the former commissioner, used to have that in their budget. So it's really left pocket, right pocket. Although it looks like I'm getting $80,000 more money, it's the same money. Correct me if I'm wrong, Lanny, but you can give them the details.

So that accounts for about $80,000 of the $281,849 that is the total change. Some of it is because there are salary increases. I think there's $21,000 of it in just general salary increases, something over which we have no control.

I have increased my positions last year, as you permitted, by one person. I got an analyst, as I explained, instead of a support staff. I really desperately need a support staff, but I thought I needed the analyst more. So I'm asking this year for one support staff position.
[ Page 2224 ]

You've got to understand. We now have about ten people, one support staff in the Vancouver office and one support staff in the Victoria office trying to service and take the intake, phone calls, do the support staff work. If one of them is on sick leave or on holidays, which they're entitled to have, all the other work goes to the other person. One person has to do it for ten people.

I really think we need a spare and someone who can take on the workload for those purposes. I don't believe I'm being unreasonable when I say that in an office with three people — two offices, one in each — we do need another support staff person in the Victoria office.

Now, the shared services that I've been talking about…. I'm told by Mr. Hubbard that my share this year is going to be increased by $88,000. Again, that's not new money. That's collectively my share of the money that I should be spending. I've been getting a real benefit in the past. It's caught up this year, and this year they're going to want me to pay my share.

Of course, with the increases in salary, etc., the benefit rates are still maintained at 23.83 percent. The other portion here is…. The figure of $200,000 that is on STOB 50 — $163,000 of that is for shared services. Half of it was old money — it's what I was paying before — and the $88,000 is the new money, new money sort of out of the collective pot.

That is a bit of an explanation as to why it is that my request is really a modest proposal. It's not something that I can cut.

If you were to say, "You're not getting your support staff," I have to be quite candid with you. I probably could live with that. I don't think it's fair to the support staff, and it's not the best, efficient use of time and services, because if one secretary goes on holidays or is sick or has some other reason not to be there, that means I've got to pull one of my analysts and have them do clerical duties. That is not an efficient way to run an office.

I don't know what else I can say about that. I know that you are looking to be as…. You're sharpening your pencil, and I can certainly appreciate that. All I can say is that I'm not sure that my budget is a budget that is really susceptible to…. There is no fat in the budget. It's just the bare minimum.

You'll see that we've been very responsible in that I have met my budget every year. I have not come back to you, although you've invited me to come back if I needed more money. I haven't called public hearings that often. I've had to where absolutely necessary.

[1515]

I may have to come back to you this year, and I'm saying that, again, I do not know what the effect of Joe Wood's recommendations actually becoming legislation will translate into. I have to wait until I see the legislation and its implementation date. You know, sometimes there is a delay between implementation, which has been promised in the throne speech, and when it is declared to be in effect and when we need the staff to…. I may need increased staff, and I've explained that in some detail in my commissioner's statement.

If you want me to go through my commissioner's statement about the kinds of recommendations that will have an effect, I'm happy to do that, but I don't want to take up your time if this is something that you're already familiar with.

Maybe I can just highlight four points, if I may. In my commissioner's statement this year, I'm basically reiterating what I said last year. Last year I said that one of the key recommendations in Mr. Wood's report is that he says we need contemporaneous oversight, which means that our analysts will be taking a more active role in the investigation of police complaints. Rather than a review after the fact, we'll be working the files while the police are doing it and providing direction and oversight at the time. Because of their increased involvement, we will need more analysts, even if the caseload remains constant.

The second recommendation — and there are 91 recommendations, by the way; I'm only picking four — that I think can impact my budget is that he recommends that all complaints, not just formally lodged complaints, will have to be processed. Now, what does that mean? A lodged complaint is where someone actually takes the time and effort to sign a document, a form 1 legislated document, and process it formally. But there are a lot of people who have legitimate complaints, who either do it by e-mail or by phone or who walk in off the street, and they don't want to sign a lodged complaint. They just want to complain about this incident.

Joe Wood recommends that everything — letters, phone calls, oral submissions — become part of the oversight process. Now, because we don't have any stats on how many unlodged complaints there are, because police are not compelled to make a record of that, we have done a straw vote, as it were, in the police departments. We found that we're getting about 50 percent of them.

So even if that is a wrong guess, I can tell you that there will be a substantially larger number of complaints than the average of 500 a year that we're getting now. I would expect there would be between 800 to 1,000, which means, naturally speaking, that we would need more personnel to handle them — either that or there's a bigger backlog, and that's not good for the process.

However, third point. To have this sort of contemporaneous oversight in place, there would have to be a computer program that gives us access to each police department's files so that we can see it, but it has to be a semi-permeable membrane in the sense that they can't look back at ours. So we have to have a computer program that allows us to look at Vancouver and Victoria and Delta and Nelson and all 12 departments, but they can't use that same system to come back. We should be
[ Page 2225 ]
the repository being able to see what they're doing, but they shouldn't be able to see what each other is doing.

The development of a computer program will take time and money. People need to be trained, and so that is that, shall we say, incremental aspect that I can see. It's not going to happen, if it's passed today, that we're up and running tomorrow. I mean, the software has to be developed. People have to be trained. The computers have to be purchased. It could be November or something before we're actually up and running. I won't hire staff until I need them.

[1520]

The fourth and final point that I propose to deal with, unless you have any questions, of course, is that we have been asked to conduct research into the frequency and demographics of complaints and to identify the development or existence of trends of alleged misconduct. One of my analysts has already been assigned part-time to do that, and it's been very, very helpful. We are able to see early warning systems that way. We can see which officers are starting to get more complaints, even though they may not be substantiated.

Sometimes your own department doesn't know, just because their record-keeping might be on individual files. But they don't see a trend developing like abuse of authority, impaired driving, drug or alcohol abuse, or any one of those trends that we start to see developing. This is really helping us, and it's helping the police, because we can advise their human resources departments: "Folks, you'd better look at this particular issue." It's all part of the oversight idea that government and the public expect from us.

I cannot deliver adequately without the resources. You will see that we are in the public eye a lot. I'm sure, ladies and gentlemen, hon. Members, that of the various ministries out there with hundreds of employees, our little office with six analysts, a deputy and myself seems to occupy, shall we say, an undue amount of media scrutiny and attention. We're in the spotlight. Public confidence in the administration of justice is affected by public confidence in the police, and that same confidence is how well they perceive that there is oversight.

This is not an expensive office. I'm asking for the minimum. I don't want to ask you for any more until I can come to you and justify that I need it. But with the greatest of respect, I believe this very modest proposal for an increment, as has been explained, is one that I hope you will see that I need in order to effectively carry out my mandate — either me, or I may be speaking for the next commissioner. I wouldn't want to leave the next commissioner with an inadequate budget in order to accomplish the huge challenges that lie ahead for him or her.

I'm prepared to answer any of your questions, unless you want me to go into further detail.

R. Hawes (Chair): Just one observation, and that's with respect to the…. I think you said $88,000 was the amount of the increase in the shared services, and you've implied that that would lead to a decrease, I'm assuming, of $88,000 in the budget of the Ombudsman. I think that's where this money is now being carried — is it not? Am I correct?

L. Hubbard: That's correct. You'll see for each of the three offices other than the Ombudsman's office that there's an increase in terms of the distribution of the shared-services cost. When you see the Ombudsman's budget, the internal recovery will be increased. It's an internal transfer, so it has the effect of reducing the overall budget requirement or request for the Ombudsman.

R. Hawes (Chair): Not having yet looked at the Ombudsman's presentation…. Lanny, I think you probably have.

L. Hubbard: Yes.

R. Hawes (Chair): Is the reduction, which the Ombudsman would then be putting forward, equivalent to the $88,000 plus the whatever-it-is that the other officers…? It's just a straight transfer?

L. Hubbard: It's not an exact offsetting amount in terms of…. The increases that are reflected in these three offices will be reflected in an increased recovery, which then reduces the budget request on the Ombudsman's side.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I had a question. I'm just looking at the appendix, the budget details under salaries. If I followed what you said correctly, you had $80,000 added, in the way that's just been described, to attributed salaries, and you were asking for the hiring of one additional person. The $200,000 minus $80,000 would leave $120,000, and out of that I took it that you're hiring one further person. Either I didn't understand it, or there needs to be further explanation.

[1525]

D. Ryneveld: Well, again, Mr. Hubbard might be in the best position to give you the refined figures, but as they have been explained to me by him, let me give you my understanding of the overview. That is that he has calculated, I believe, that $91,000 would be the increase for an additional position. I think that probably includes computers and workstation and all that other kind of thing — benefits, not just salary. And we have had a reclassification of the deputy, who was formerly an analyst, was paid at an analyst rate, and has gone up to deputy status, which had a reclassification effect. So that is included in that $91,000.
[ Page 2226 ]

The $21,000 of it was due to a general salary increase, which I believe was the percentage that the other employees got just as a matter of course with their collective bargaining agreement, I take it. Although we're excluded personnel…. I don't want to mix the language, but as I understand, they got an equivalent raise for those employees that added up to that amount.

Mr. Hubbard, perhaps you can clarify what I've just managed to muddy up.

L. Hubbard: Okay. This is because we're talking about the budget starting in the next fiscal year. The $21,000 is for the salary increment that has already been determined on the pay scales — the general public service increase of 2½ percent, I believe it is, applied across the whole public service.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): But that's for all employees then?

L. Hubbard: All employees — that's right.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): All bargaining unit employees?

L. Hubbard: And excluded.

So that $21,000 is due to that — just applied to the existing staff — and $91,000, as Mr. Ryneveld mentioned, is for the additional position plus the reclassification internally within the Police Complaint Commissioner's office.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): So could you just divide that up then? How much is the reclassification?

L. Hubbard: Oh. I'm just going by memory, but I would put it probably in the order of $20,000, I would think, going from an analyst to the deputy's position.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): So it's $71,000 to hire one support person?

L. Hubbard: Right.

R. Hawes (Chair): Plus benefits.

L. Hubbard: And the $88,000 then remaining for the increased reallocation on the shared services.

J. Yap: In your narrative you talk about some training that you do at the Justice Institute with police officers. I'm wondering…. You refer to professional standards, personnel, police, boards, recruits. How much of your FTE is spent in supporting the Justice Institute? And is that part of your official mandate?

D. Ryneveld: I'm sorry. How much is in my official mandate? In regard to my mandate, I don't have the act in front of me, but there is a duty to support, advise and assist. As is evidenced by my own observations in the past five years and Joe Wood's report, which indicates that professional standards people were poorly trained, that…. Well, there are a number of things.

I believe that I may even have commented on that in one of the quotes from Mr. Wood. Maybe it's not in here. Anyway, by memory — this is not a quote now — he commented on the fact that during his review of some 300 files and visiting everybody…. It was really an extensive look at the oversight system. He was concerned that there wasn't complete acceptance of the concept of oversight.

[1530]

He went on to say that, generally speaking, professional standards people were poorly trained; they put people in there that didn't want to do the job. The training that young recruits were getting at the JI, in my experience and in Mr. Wood's experience, was along the lines of, well, painting civilian oversight as a form of necessary evil, I suppose.

So we realized that it became necessary to take an active role. I've had my deputy and some of our analysts go over and explain the Police Act, how it works, to get the young recruits. We attend once a month to the graduating classes at the JI. If they get a proper grounding in demystifying the myths of what the Police Act is — demystifying the process, seeing that we are human and not ogres and that we do understand policing — it will train the young officers to be in a better frame of mind to accept civilian oversight.

Their professional standards people had to be trained this same way. We have led workshops with them.

To give you some examples, I arranged with the Attorney General's ministry to get some of their Crown counsel to give free lectures on the law, updates on the law, to police officers. I thought it would be better coming from an independent source like the AG's office rather than from my office, even though I was a Crown counsel for 25 years and in charge of the Victoria office. It might be suspect coming from me. So I arranged for the Attorney General's ministry staff.

We paid for the conference, basically. We managed to get the JI for free, but there were expenses involved that we had to pick up.

J. Yap: Commissioner, it sounds like you've done quite extensive — your staff — involvement in training, and that might grow.

D. Ryneveld: Oh yes.

J. Yap: I guess to zero in on my question, the first part of my question: how much of your staff time is being
[ Page 2227 ]
spent on this growing area of training? I'd like a sense of whether that is part of the challenge here.

D. Ryneveld: It is part of the challenge.

J. Yap: Is it 10 percent? Is it 20 percent?

D. Ryneveld: I was going to say around 10 percent. It might be 7.8, but…. There are various times when we are busier than others, in terms of being able to sponsor conferences. In the summer months it might drop off. Then when the fall comes, it increases as they get their classes together, etc.

I would say roughly 10 percent. Most of all analysts are involved. We also get involved in diversity. We get involved in outreach programs. I am a speaker at many conferences on oversight. We are involved in the promotion of civilian oversight not only in British Columbia but nationally and internationally. So that also takes some of my time. I guess my salary is part of this budget as well. But it's a necessary thing to give us credibility in the oversight community.

J. Horgan: Thank you, Commissioner, for your presentation. I have a series of questions. I'd also just like to maybe foreshadow some issues that Lanny may want to take back to future presentations.

I'm pleased to see that travel is frozen, administrative costs are frozen and advertising is reduced. Those are all to the good, as we look at a period of scrutiny over discretionary spending such as that. But I'm not clear on…. Understanding that the shared services increase is $88,000, on STOB 59 it says central management services are increasing by $13,000. I'm wondering where you could fit that in for me.

Then in years out, in the plan for '10-11 and '11-12 there's a drastic reduction. Yet in the years out under STOB 50, where we can anticipate year-over-year salary increases, there is no allowance for that.

So I'm wondering if you could explain why we are not seeing salaries increasing in out-years and why there's a drastic decrease in STOB 59.

[1535]

L. Hubbard: A fair number of points there. If I miss some of them, you'll help me remember.

STOB 59 is the central management costs that we're paying. Currently our building lease costs are in there, and they're paid to ARES. That's an internal cost that goes under that STOB, so it's just a reflection of the space costs for the Police Complaint Commissioner — the space that's occupied in the next year.

You'll see that that number goes down dramatically in fiscal 2011-2012, and that reflects the new building project that we appeared before the committee on and received approval of. The new space cost then, because it would be to an external landlord, shows up under STOB 75. So you'll see there's a big increase in STOB 75, and then the decrease — the costs that we're currently paying to ARES — is taken out of STOB 59, leaving only the other kinds of costs that are central management costs like data lines and things like that, which go to WTS.

Salary costs for fiscals '11 and '12. We don't know what they might be, so we're just projecting forward in terms of…. Obviously, if there's a new salary award that is negotiated sometime next year when government contracts expire with the employees, then there might be an award; there might not. Who knows what will come? To put anything in there would be just a guess.

J. Horgan: So contracts don't go to '10-11? I thought we went…. Okay. Sorry.

L. Hubbard: I don't think so.

The commissioner's salary. You'll see there is an increase in '11, because we know that one. The judicial compensation report did carry forward to that point. So we know what the salary is for the legislative officers in fiscal 2011. Beyond that we don't know, so it's just held constant.

Did I miss any…?

J. Horgan: No, that's good. But there's one other question, and that would be…. Under STOB 52 we have $28,000 in benefits. That's for the commissioner?

L. Hubbard: Well, it includes the commissioner, but basically you take the STOB 50 plus STOB 54 and you apply a percentage, which is currently 23.83 percent, of the total, and then you also add the commissioner's car allowance. That comes out of that STOB as well.

R. Hawes (Chair): I just have one very…. This may seem a little crazy, but under your amortization expense, where's that money held? Is that held centrally?

L. Hubbard: Where does it go?

R. Hawes (Chair): Where is it held?

L. Hubbard: The capital or the…?

R. Hawes (Chair): Yeah. Under your amortization you have $25,000. So that money is going to be held somewhere.

L. Hubbard: Well, amortization is operating money that is required in the operating budget to pay back the capital budget expenditures. So it comes from the capital funding of the government, and then you pay it back. In the case of computers, you pay it back over three…. It's essentially depreciated over three years, so you have to
[ Page 2228 ]
pay one-third back each year. Furniture you have to pay back over five years — 20 percent each year. Buildings are over five years as well. These are periods that are specified by OCG in terms of what the amortization period is.

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay, but that money is being paid into the Ministry of Finance, I take it.

[1540]

L. Hubbard: Yes. Basically, there's an…. That's right. In terms of how it's managed, we make a journal voucher from this budget back to the Ministry of Finance.

R. Hawes (Chair): So if I look down here under the capital budget — the $25,000 — that would be funding that would then have to be repaid?

L. Hubbard: That's right. It gets paid. You can see that because the capital budget has been roughly $25,000 for some time, if your capital budget is the same year after year and assuming that you spend it always, then your amortization will roughly be equal, too, in any given year.

In 2011, when our building project happens and we have to use a big chunk of capital for the tenant improvements, then we'll have a jump in amortization to pay that back for five years.

R. Hawes (Chair): Yet you're showing the big jump. When does the repayment of that money start?

L. Hubbard: Sorry?

R. Hawes (Chair): Oh no, you're back down to the $25,000. Okay, I get what you're saying there.

L. Hubbard: Yeah, the capital is just the one time for the one year.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Can you give a little bit more detail of what STOB 60, "Professional services," consists of?

D. Ryneveld: Yes. Those are my legal costs for public hearings. My lawyer Dana Urban, you may recall, has been away on leave of absence and went to Kosovo. Then he worked for the United Nations in Sri Lanka. He was on a leave of absence, so I had to fill in with ad hoc counsel, Mr. Frank Falzon.

It also pays for the adjudicator costs, and it pays for the…. Whenever we have a public hearing we have to hire a court clerk, basically, to run those things. They are expenses that I have had to pay in order to….

And we've been sued a number of times. So whenever we go to court, we've had to have counsel represent us in court. You won't believe how many people want to take legal issue with my decisions. You can't prevent people filing writs, and you have to defend them, whether they have merit or substance or not.

So far there has not been any finding…. None have been successful, but that doesn't mean you don't have to draft your pleadings and go to court and do all those things. Since my commission counsel wasn't available, I had to hire a private practitioner to do that.

I got a good rate from a QC, who is excellent, and with the public hearing we've had two different counsel. So that is what that figure is, sir.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Thanks. Part of what you've stressed here is the possibility of the implementation of Mr. Justice Wood's recommendations, and obviously that's uncertain. I'm wondering….

I think I understand your concern to be prepared in the event that legislation does come forward. Where in the budget, then, is the absolute…? Where does it reflect in the budget the minimum spending that is required as preparation in anticipation of something that may or may not happen depending on, I suppose, the will of the Legislature?

D. Ryneveld: If it is the will of the Legislature, as has been indicated in the throne speech that they intend to implement, then I anticipate the need to come back to you and ask for more money, because what I have done is staffed up to do the job that currently is in front of us. I'm giving you….

I was explaining, I believe, in the message that I was unhappy with our backlog and with our lack of timely resolution, which was not good for complainants, nor was it good for police officers, having this hanging over their heads for so long. The investigation itself took six months or so, and then we would get the report after the disciplinary authority made his decision on the final investigation report.

[1545]

Then we started reviewing, and by the time we came up to a yea or nay, it was often close to a year. We were backlogged. Some of these things are very, very complex with a lot of legal issues, as you can appreciate.

I felt that our caseload was such that I simply had to staff up, and I did. I explained that to you, and I didn't hire the support staff I asked for last year and instead hired an analyst, because that is my primary job.

This year all I'm asking for is the support staff that you were kind enough to give me last year, which I didn't take. You know, you gave me money for jawbreakers, and I bought bubble gum.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Well, I don't know whether that's the right analogy. I think I understand what you're saying about Mr. Justice Wood's recommendations.
[ Page 2229 ]

The other thing…. I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but have you used temporary personnel in the past for holiday coverage or for absences? I mean, it's a fairly well-known way of covering off when someone is away unexpectedly, and it doesn't require a full salary to do that. So is that something that you have done in the past?

D. Ryneveld: Yes, sir, we did that last year. Obviously just because I didn't hire, it didn't mean that the need went away. And we did hire…. Actually, what we did is share with the Privacy Commissioner and perhaps even with the Ombudsman.

There was an individual. But we have a very complicated process, and when you bring in temp staff, you can give them only certain…. And it's also of a very confidential nature. Although the person was very useful for doing filing and sort of more menial things, the job required somebody who was there on a longer term and could be trained to do a particular function, like input of information or analysis of documents that came in, to help in drafting…. Well, to work in our computer system.

Part-time help is only part-time help, so the answer to your question is: yes, sir, I did, but it wasn't the answer to my problem.

R. Hawes (Chair): I do have one, I guess, comment. Like Bruce, I don't want to sound disrespectful, but last year I think you made a case for clerical assistance.

D. Ryneveld: I did.

R. Hawes (Chair): I don't think a case was made last year for an analyst. It was clerical assistance. So when you make a decision like that…. You convinced us that you needed clerical assistance, and then suddenly it's something else you needed. Now you come back, and you need that which you asked for and made a case for last year. I find that pretty problematic. I do.

D. Ryneveld: Well, I appreciate that, sir, and I had thought I tried to explain…

R. Hawes (Chair): You did.

D. Ryneveld: …in my message why I did it and that it was a business decision I made. If you want to take me to task for having made that business decision, I appreciate that, but it is one that I'm prepared to justify to you that the job requirements….

And I'm not coming back to you this year for my money. By hiring that person in October…. I couldn't afford that person on my current budget for the entire year, so I waited until October, hired in October so that I'll have enough money until April to continue to pay that individual, if you appreciate what I’m saying.

But you're right. I should have done what you approved, which is to hire support staff, but the…. Okay, so last year when I came to you, I didn't recognize how desperately I needed and wanted this extra analyst, and I did that instead. I realize I'm coming back to you today asking for something you already approved last time, but I didn't do it. For that I apologize, but it was a business decision. It's a sound business decision, and apart from the fact that I didn't get your approval to do that, I'm hoping to be able to have you understand why I did it.

R. Hawes (Chair): I do understand why you did it. But I guess where I would put the caution in is when you say that you waited till October because you wouldn't have enough money in your budget, really what you're saying is, "I made a decision," that would, in essence, force an increase that we haven't had an opportunity to contemplate here because you've hired someone who was more expensive than that which we approved.

[1550]

Again, I find that somewhat problematic because you have now created an overage in your budget, if we have a hold-the-line budget. If we do, then you're going to be having to make another business decision.

D. Ryneveld: Yes, I am, sir. You're absolutely right, and….

R. Hawes (Chair): Can I just suggest to you that when situations like that arise and you're going to make that kind of change, which is going to be more expensive and is going to have a bottom-line impact…. Probably the wise thing to do would be to ask to come back and explain and get approval from the committee before you make bottom-line-impact decisions like that.

I would hope that all independent officers of the Legislature, because we are the committee that's charged with looking at the expenses here and we are the oversight….

D. Ryneveld: You are, and I apologize.

Again, I don't want to be argumentative, sir, but I did indicate that if I need more money, I'll come back to you in November. Technically speaking, I'm here in November, coming back to you and saying I need more money but not for this year — for next year.

That is not what you contemplated, and it's not what I intended. I apologize to this committee if I've placed you in that situation. I did not mean to be disrespectful either. I respect this committee's oversight. I of all people am aware of the need for oversight, and I'm saying to you that that was my faux pas. But I did it with good intention and, hopefully, with appropriate justification.

J. Yap: Chair, I think it may be appropriate to put forward a motion. To set the context for this, I think it's
[ Page 2230 ]
important to note, as we did at the outset — and the commissioner acknowledged it in his opening remarks — that we are currently facing an exceptional fiscal situation.

R. Hawes (Chair): If I could just add one…. If we're going to lead to a recommendation on the report, because we haven't dealt with it, we should be dealing with this in camera.

J. Yap: Okay. Motion to move in camera.

R. Hawes (Chair): We have a motion to move in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 3:53 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[R. Hawes in the chair.]

R. Hawes (Chair): Tomorrow afternoon is the conflict commissioner, and then on Monday we have three in the morning, Monday morning.

Bruce, are you here on Monday, December 1?

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I think so.

R. Hawes (Chair): You are here? Because I'm going to be on the telephone.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): It's fine with me.

J. Horgan: I'm here.

R. Hawes (Chair): I know. I'm thinking about the Chair.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Yeah, I think I was planning to come over.

J. Horgan: You don't want to give me the gavel. That would be a bad thing.

R. Hawes (Chair): I mean, it can be chaired by telephone, but it's not as….

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): So who are we doing on Monday, then?

C. James (Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees): The Ombudsman, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Auditor General.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Ombudsman, electoral officer…. Oh yeah, so that's a big day, then. I was planning to come to that. I'll be here.

C. James (Clerk of Committees): Wednesday is the Information and Privacy and the Representative for Children and Youth.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): We're going to work out that conflict with the Public Accounts Committee?

A Voice: Yes.

R. Hawes (Chair): So we don't have a….

We'll now get a motion to adjourn.

The committee adjourned at 4:11 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.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada