2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

10 a.m.

Douglas Fir Committee Room

Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

Present: John Les, MLA (Chair); Doug Donaldson, MLA (Deputy Chair); Norm Letnick, MLA; Don McRae, MLA; Michelle Mungall, MLA; Bruce Ralston, MLA; Bill Routley, MLA; John Rustad, MLA; Jane Thornthwaite, MLA; John van Dongen, MLA

1. There not yet being a Chair elected to serve the Committee, the meeting was called to order at 10:08 a.m. by the Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk.

2. Resolved, that John Les, MLA be elected to serve as Chair (Norm Letnick, MLA).

3. Resolved, that Doug Donaldson, MLA be elected to serve as Deputy Chair (Michelle Mungall, MLA).

4. The Committee reviewed its terms of reference and discussed its budget planning process.

5. Resolved, that staff explore a meeting in Vancouver during the UBCM week and in various regional centres during Thanksgiving break week and explore the additional possibility of holding some meetings by video conferencing. (Don McRae, MLA).

6. Resolved, that the Committee receive its terms of reference (Doug Donaldson, MLA).

7. The Committee adjourned at 10:45 a.m. to the call of the Chair.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

select standing committee on
Finance and Government Services

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Issue No. 1

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 1 ]

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

Election of Chair and Deputy Chair

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk): Good morning, everyone. My name is Kate Ryan-Lloyd. I am the Clerk to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the present session.

As this is the first meeting of the committee in the new parliament and there is not yet a Chair elected to serve the committee, the first item of business will be election of Chair this morning. I would like to open up the floor to nominations for that position.

N. Letnick: I'd like to nominate MLA John Les.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Committee Clerk): Mr. Les, would you accept nomination?

J. Les: Certainly.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Committee Clerk): Okay.

I will call for any other further nominations three times. Any further nominations? Any further nominations?

Seeing none, I will put the question on the motion that John Les serve as Chair of this committee.

Motion approved.

[J. Les in the chair.]

J. Les (Chair): Thank you all very much. [Applause.] Let it be noted there was scattered applause.

Before we do anything else, we should nominate and elect a Deputy Chair as well, so I am open to nominations for Deputy Chair.

M. Mungall: I'd like to nominate Doug Donaldson, please.

J. Les (Chair): Doug Donaldson has been nominated.

Do you accept the nomination?

D. Donaldson: I do.

J. Les (Chair): Are there any further nominations? Calling for a third and final time. Are there any further nominations?

Hearing none, I'll call the question on the motion.

Motion approved.

J. Les (Chair): Welcome aboard. Would you like to make a speech?

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): I'll restrain myself.

Prebudget Consultation Process

J. Les (Chair): For the moment.

Welcome, everyone, to the initial meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Finance. Just a couple of comments at the outset. Normally, this committee is charged much earlier in the year. But because of the election, of course, and the timing of the sitting of the House, which is hardly underway, the committee was just charged earlier this week.

[1010]

However, we still need to comply with the deadline of November 15 to deliver our report. That, of course, is with the fact in mind that in February — or I believe this year it's early March — the Finance Minister will be tabling the 2010-2011 budget upon which we are going to engage in consultation.

The fact is that today being the 16th of September and our report being due to be delivered to the Legislature by the 15th of November, it means we have two short months in which to do all of our work. I am optimistic that in spite of that short time frame, we can still engage in very meaningful consultation with British Columbians.

We might have to do it a little differently, however, because of the very short time frame that we have in which to work. Secondly, I think it is appropriate that we are mindful of the fact that we live in fiscally difficult times. I think British Columbians would expect us to bear that in mind, particularly in terms of trying to minimize the expenses of the committee.

I think the other thing to keep in mind before we start discussion this morning is that, roughly speaking, the first month of the committee's work will be gathering public input. The second month will be devoted to staff collating all of the information that has been received from British Columbians and committee meetings to deliberate on the final report. Traditionally, it has taken about a month for a proper collation of that input and committee deliberations.

As I said, we have about a month to do the public consultation. To the extent that we might have public hearings, it takes some considerable logistical effort to arrange those meetings. That effort would have to start immediately after this meeting, upon committee direction.

On the other hand, although we might be constrained time-wise and perhaps budget-wise, we are assisted, of course, by evolving technology. People today are quite accustomed to providing input by electronic means, and I would like at least some discussion about the potential of using video conferencing.

That really hasn't been done before in the context of a legislative committee, but I think it is worthwhile considering that — maybe not making it the major mode of public input, but something that we ought to try to perhaps learn from and give other communities and
[ Page 2 ]
individuals an opportunity to make presentations to the committee using that method of communication.

I wonder if there is any other comment at this point. We do need to talk about where we might hold public meetings and when. We need to talk about advertising. We need to talk about the terms of reference, etc., that have already been circulated.

Perhaps a bit of general discussion, first of all, if committee members would like.

J. van Dongen: As I look around the room, Mr. Chair, most of the members of the committee are new. I can't speak for John here, but I haven't been involved in the Finance Committee before. I wonder if the Clerk could just talk a little bit about how many meetings in past years the committee did have, the kinds of locations and, secondly, about capability of using video conferencing that the Clerk's office would have.

[1015]

If she could talk about those two things, I think it gives us a base to carry on a conversation about what we could and should do.

J. Les (Chair): Sure. Kate, would you like to discuss that?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Committee Clerk): In the past the committee has undertaken a real range of public hearing locations and visits. As you may know, the committee started in the fall of the year 2000, so we've had experience now in our office for nine seasons. This will be the tenth time that we go out on the road with the Finance Committee to receive budget input.

The number of public meeting locations has varied considerably over the years. Last year, as an example, the committee went to a total of 17 towns, which is the most that the committee has ever visited in the course of one budget consultation cycle.

However, I note that for comparison, in fall 2005, which was another election year and also resulted in some compressed timelines for our planning purposes, the committee at that time visited eight communities, which was one of the least amounts of any year. In that given year, for example, major regional centres were selected to enable the committee to provide a public meeting in those regions where folks could come to major centres in their local region to provide input.

Of course, the committee also accepts input traditionally through written submissions and through electronic means. In the past the committee has converted into electronic web form any questions that might appear in the budget consultation paper to help guide people's input. Some groups will present a very lengthy brief to the committee, highlighting their budget priorities. Other citizens might choose just to answer the series of questions and provide responses to those areas of discussion.

With respect to video conferencing, as the Chair has explained, it would be a new initiative for our office. We are fortunate, however, that this room is fully equipped for video conferencing. One scenario that might be considered by the committee is to have this room as sort of the main hub for a series of video conference meetings.

One scenario that might be under consideration would be something such as identifying a number of regional communities. I understand that most of the communities, either through colleges or other government agent offices, would have video conferencing facilities as remote locations.

Ideally, I would love to be able to provide a plan that would see perhaps two or three locations simultaneously broadcast into this room on any given morning. As witnesses might appear in smaller local communities, this committee would be able to meet with them through that means and ask questions of them and have some kind of interchange.

Of course, I would also counsel the committee to keep in mind that any type of input provided to the committee, be it in writing or through a face-to-face presentation, traditionally carries equal weight. Although many people might have a preference to come and appear before you in person, of course, any ideas that are submitted to you in writing would also be given, I'm sure, your full consideration.

J. Les (Chair): Just a comment, and then I'll recognize Doug.

Last year there were 2,915 presentations to the committee, of which 189 were orally presented in person. There were just over 300 that were written, just over 1,400 that were on line by e-mail and about 1,000 flyers. So in terms of the number of submissions, the oral presentations certainly are quite a small minority. I'm not downplaying the fact that they're important, but just keep that kind of context in mind.

Doug, over to you.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you, John. It's nice to be able to address people by their first names.

Thanks, Kate, for that background information. I'd like to respond to a few of your opening comments. I'm sensitive to the fact of all of those that you talked about — the time, the budget and the need for using different means to collect the submissions.

I actually copied a page out of the 2005 report, because I felt that it has the most relevance to what we're facing today. It was an election year as well. In that year Blair Lekstrom was the Chair, I believe. This committee wasn't struck until September 19, so we're up ahead three days on them already. We're doing well that way.

[1020]

I think the timing is obviously a challenge. They went to eight communities, and I think that's a good number that we should be shooting for.
[ Page 3 ]

The budget — very sensitive to that issue, considering what we're facing in the province. However, we're seeing very heightened interest in the budget process and heightened interest in HST. I think we should not be seen to be discouraging input from the regions.

You know, with the 50 percent voter turnout, I think it's incumbent to demonstrate that we're ready to listen and receive people's submissions from faraway places that oftentimes have a hard time getting here. I just want to put the marker in that despite the economic times we're facing, I think it's important to encourage the input and the interest that seem to be out there.

Finally, the idea of video conferencing. Well, I think the other John can attest to the fact that in the north, we do things face to face. In smaller rural communities face-to-face is the way that you establish trust and you share information the best. From a technological aspect as well, we're often challenged with the high-speed access and the reliability of that in remote and rural locations and the smaller communities.

That's just a cautionary note that I would suggest. If we're going to go down that route, perhaps it could be used in larger centres that aren't as nearby — like Kelowna, for instance — or somewhere that we can set up that technology where it will actually work.

I don't know if any of you have participated — I have — in video conferencing. Face-to-face is the best, of course. We all know that. I would just say that coming from a remote region — a rural community's perspective — it seems like we're always the candidates for video conferencing at the expense of not being able to do it face to face. I'd suggest that perhaps some of the larger centres could try the video conferencing.

M. Mungall: I agree. I'm quite sensitive to the fact of the time frame that we're working under and, of course, our budgetary constraints overall.

I'd also add climate change. We live in an era of climate change, and we need to be conscious of the amount of transportation and energy we're using as we tour around the province. So video conferencing is an excellent tool for us to use, and I would argue that because of video conferencing, we can probably do more than the eight that they did in 2005. We can actually raise the bar this year. Eight should be that minimum. Because of video conferencing, we could see how many more we can include.

I know what you're saying, John — that in comparison to the total sum of presentations, very few are direct public input. I have a feeling, though, that this year is going to be a bit different. We have the largest deficit in B.C. history. We have an economic recession that's put a lot of financial pressure not only on the province but on individual taxpayers. I think they're going to want to have a little bit more input than maybe we've seen in the past or even quite a lot more input than we've seen in the past.

We need to make sure that we give them the opportunity to do that and that face-to-face in remote areas that only have dial-up — so definitely don't have video conferencing — but also in the larger urban centres where we can do that video conferencing and make sure there is plenty of opportunity for the public input.

J. Rustad: I'm happy to be back on the committee for this go-round, although I do know that with the tight schedule, it is going to be a challenge to do as much of the tour as we did last year. We did 17, which was quite a task.

What I'd like to maybe suggest is…. I think the video conferencing is an excellent idea. But given the short time, perhaps we could consider maybe five regional meetings, if we had time for such things. Perhaps one up in the northwest — say, Smithers; one in central Prince George; perhaps one in the Okanagan. I think we've been to Penticton and Kelowna. I don't know if we've been to Vernon before. Perhaps one there, which would be in between Kamloops and the Kelowna area. Perhaps one in the Lower Mainland and one on the Island.

[1025]

Thereby you'd at least be able to have a tour that would go through, and people would have an opportunity to be able to come and present in face. Then if we wanted to, if we had some opportunity to do some video conferencing, there might be a chance to do the northeast as well as the southeast of the province as part of a video conferencing, and perhaps even north Island or something like that. So there would be an opportunity for some input there.

I'm just throwing that out on the table as a possibility. I do know that with the schedules we have, the time it required to actually get around to those communities was quite onerous. We don't have that kind of time this time around, because of the House schedule.

J. Les (Chair): Well, another one of the parameters is the House schedule. Also keep in mind that although this room is wired for video conferencing, this is also known as the little House where we will be doing estimates, I believe, starting next week.

If we were to do video conferencing sessions here, they would necessarily have to be done on a Friday. So we need to keep that in mind as well. There will be several Fridays, obviously, available for that. Again, just bear that in mind.

N. Letnick: I think we're going in the right direction by selecting a few areas that we go and visit, consistent with what happened four years ago. I'm also sensitive to the greenhouse gas emission question that Michelle brought up and, of course, the tight budget.

One thing we might want to look at in addition to video conferencing, to the e-mails, to the letters and to us actually going out to those five or six areas is to offer people the
[ Page 4 ]
opportunity to submit webcam submissions. You find that a lot on YouTube right now. It's the way to attract a new generation of responders.

I think if Kate could look at the opportunity of saying: "Yes, there is a way that you can submit a video cam presentation through to us…." It won't be as interactive as the video conferencing is, but it will get throughout the province wherever there's Internet. I'm not saying we have to post it on YouTube, but at least we should be able to get that information. So just one more piece to the puzzle.

B. Ralston: Sorry to get here a bit late. I definitely think we shouldn't go down below the number done in 2005. Typically in Vancouver it's oversubscribed. We sit all day, and there are maybe 35 presentations. A lot of those people then look to another one in the Lower Mainland as an overflow. Usually we've done something in the Fraser Valley — not necessarily in B.C.'s second city, Surrey. Many of the institutional presenters look for that space in the Lower Mainland. You don't have to fly to get there.

I think we should consider either two days in Vancouver or a day in Vancouver and a day somewhere else in the Lower Mainland and definitely a full day here in Victoria because, again, institutional presenters will want to do that.

If we are going to reduce the travel and do the video conferencing, then I think we should compensate by adding days in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland and here in the lower Island. We could even do two in Victoria. Then many of the institutional presenters from the Lower Mainland will come over to Victoria as well. That's not too much of a strain either.

I understand the pressure on budgets and all the arguments in favour of video conferencing. It's not the same as being there, and everyone knows that. I don't think we should unnecessarily make this a video conference kind of consultation, because it really will change the dynamic entirely. I think it's valuable for this committee, as part of the mandated legislative consultation, to be out throughout the province talking to people about the budget. I think there'll be some interest in the budget this year, which maybe there wasn't in some of the previous years.

[1030]

J. Les (Chair): I sense, I think, a bit of a consensus here that we should aim for the five or six regional meetings in addition to Victoria — keeping in mind, of course, that here in Victoria we can actually meet while the House is in session. So that gives us some additional flexibility.

Interjection.

J. Les (Chair): Is that not true?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Committee Clerk): As long as the room is not being used by Committee of Supply. But perhaps you're exactly right, Mr. Chair. Wednesday morning might be an option.

J. Les (Chair): Wednesday morning. Couldn't we use another room, like the Birch Room, I think it is, upstairs? Has that been done before or not?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Committee Clerk): For public hearings, they're typically held here in this room, but we can certainly accommodate the committee's schedule. That will take priority.

J. Les (Chair): I was thinking that if we have some kind of consensus, we probably need to have another meeting a week from now, while we've given staff some time to take our direction this morning to see what they can put together in terms of a proposal for consultation, particularly in terms of the travel that the committee might do — where we can go, how it can be organized, what dates we should be doing that.

My suggestion would be that we engage in that consultation exercise in terms of the regional centres where we would travel to during the Thanksgiving week break — I think that's the only reasonable sort of time that we have — and that we do the Vancouver consultations, if possible, during the UBCM week, which is two weeks from now.

I'm assuming that most members will be in the area at that time. If we use the Tuesday, for example, or maybe the Tuesday and part of the Wednesday, I'd be interested in your preferences there.

I think if we kind of roughly calculate it out that way, we can do a fairly significant consultation. Then, of course, here in Victoria we would do some as well. I think there have been some good suggestions in terms of Smithers, Prince George, Kelowna, Vancouver. On the Island here would be Victoria.

The video conferencing — I agree with Bruce. It is not the same as face to face, and I think you've said the same thing, Doug. But it is an available technology, and for one, I would be interested just to see what the response would be and whether we can learn from that. Perhaps other committees might use it in the future.

Given the discussion and the sort of consensus that I think exists, could we maybe have a motion to have staff explore meeting in Vancouver during the UBCM week and in various regional centres during the Thanksgiving break week and explore the possibility of doing some video conferencing in addition to that?

That’s been moved by Don and seconded by John. Discussion.
[ Page 5 ]

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Yes, I understand your timing, especially around the week after Thanksgiving. I just want to point out that that's usually when I slaughter my sheep. So if I come into the meetings with blood on my hands, you'll know that's what I've been up to. But that's fine. I know I've signed up for this job, and I'll….

The other aspect is that as far as the UBCM goes, I'll have to consult with my colleagues around that — how that fits in with their plans for that week as well. I know many of us are meeting with our municipalities and have some other things going, so I'll have to wait on that as well.

J. Les (Chair): Okay.

B. Ralston: The other thing might be, rather than do all the Vancouver stuff at that time, to do some — a day or a day and a half — and then leave an opening near the end, because inevitably people don't hear about it. They inevitably want to present. That always happens, so it might be good to have a day near the end in Vancouver or in Victoria where those people who didn't hear about it….

It doesn't matter how well it's publicized. It seems to happen pretty well every year. I think Kate would confirm that. Maybe we could consider doing that as well, and that would be relatively low-cost as well.

J. Les (Chair): That would be low-cost, and a Friday could be utilized for that, given that members are not terribly far away at the end of a Thursday.

[1035]

N. Letnick: As far as directions to staff go on UBCM, if they can look at the whole week, including Monday…. I know you said Tuesday, but UBCM starts on Monday. I understand the schedule is pretty light on Monday, so that would be one more day to look at as an option.

J. Les (Chair): The earlier in the week, the better, I think, is the….

Interjection.

N. Letnick: So Monday all day would be an option.

J. Les (Chair): It certainly is something we need to look at.

J. Rustad: In terms of UBCM, if that is what we're going to be looking at and if we're looking at Monday, some of us that are travelling from far locations may look at Monday morning for travel. It might be interesting to consider Monday afternoon or perhaps a Monday evening session in the Lower Mainland to try to get two sessions in and to work it around that way.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, I don't see any other speakers….

J. Thornthwaite: How does it work, then, with the actual venue where the people are submitting their submissions when they're off site?

J. Les (Chair): You mean in terms of the video conferencing?

J. Thornthwaite: Yeah. Where would they…? You mentioned universities or…. How does that work?

J. Les (Chair): How do you mean — how does that work? It is an interactive thing. John, have you…?

J. Rustad: I think what she's wondering is just…. There aren't a lot of locations around where people may go to be able to link into video conferencing.

J. Les (Chair): Actually, there are more than you might think.

J. Rustad: And that's just it. I think it's just an issue of finding a few locations and deciding how we can try to link them in and at what times.

J. Les (Chair): Why don't we leave that for staff to report back to us next week in terms of what's possible, what the locations are and what the logistics of that might be?

J. Thornthwaite: I was just thinking how easy it is for the actual people to access that. If they wanted to have as close to a face-to-face as possible, in other words, as opposed to sending an e-mail, if they wanted to get some sort of video conferencing going, how easy it was for them to access that….

J. Les (Chair): Okay. On the motion, then.

Motion approved.

J. Les (Chair): Kate, what else did we need to decide this morning?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Committee Clerk): I think that covers most of what we had aimed to receive direction on. Essentially, with your assistance now in identifying those dates and the general regions that we will be looking at, in terms of coming back to this committee as soon as possible with some recommendations, you've enabled us now to go and do some planning and to check meeting facility space to try and figure out a plan that works in order to cover as much ground as we can during the time that is accommodated.

I might mention that the committee last year, in order to expedite its first hearing in Vancouver because of the
[ Page 6 ]
tight advertising timelines.... We were not able to provide a formal newspaper advertisement in time to announce an open public meeting. So the first meeting was actually one that we coordinated through direct communication with all the stakeholders who have participated in past years. So folks who had come to the committee year after year on behalf of their organization were contacted by e-mail and advised that the opportunity was available to them.

I anticipate that perhaps during UBCM week, because it's about ten or 12 days away from today, that might be the best way to give those folks notice. They in many cases have already contacted our office and asked when the first opportunity to meet with you would be available to them. So I'm hoping that we'll be able to have a full program and make best use of your time that day.

If I might, as well, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if there's anything else on the budget planning that we're about to embark on, but I thought I might address very briefly the terms of reference before the committee, if that's all right.

I just wanted to mention…. As you can see on the terms of reference that were approved by the House on Monday afternoon, the work of this committee is in essence twofold. My task is to assist you with the first mandate, which is with respect to the budget consultation process.

My colleague Josie Schofield has assisted the committee in preparing its report and reviewing submissions for a number of years, and she is, I'm sure, looking forward to working with all of you. We will be very busy on your behalf in the weeks ahead.

In essence, I also wanted to mention that you can see that the terms of reference include a second responsibility — for this committee to consider and make recommendations on a number of reports, including budget submissions of the eight independent statutory officers of the Legislature. That is a process that is overseen or supported by my colleague Craig James. He will be working with you during that process.

[1040]

Although the budget consultation work may not be concluded until approximately November 13 or 15, the work with the statutory officers is likely to begin just before that timeline. So there will be this dual mandate that he will help guide you through as the fall unfolds.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. I think it might be in good order to have a motion to receive the terms of reference.

Motion approved.

J. Les (Chair): Should we also have a motion to receive the consultation document?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Committee Clerk): I don't think it's required. It is actually referred to the committee by statute so it's before you.

J. Les (Chair): I think I sense agreement that we should meet again next Wednesday morning to discuss in more detail the consultation arrangements that staff will have worked out by that time. I would commit in the meantime to working with staff, in conjunction with you, Doug, if we need some informal meetings in the meantime.

Is there any other business we need to conduct today?

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): I need some clarification. Kate, would you like us to forward you e-mail addresses for groups that might not have been on the list for Vancouver — you know, to get those out there to the people already?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Committee Clerk): Well, the process that we would undertake, just for clarification, is that we have a database which lists everybody who has participated in the Lower Mainland since year 1. In order to be fair, what we did was rank that by the number of times that they have appeared before the committee over the years. So the groups that have come out each and every year would be at the top of that list.

If we can identify a meeting time, for example, let's say, of five or six hours, that opens up about 22 time slots for the committee. So then we would send an e-mail out to the first 30, and if we only receive back, let's say, 15 or 17 acceptances, then we go down the list. So in order to be as fair as possible…. It's still a public meeting, but because it's not as fully available to the public as the subsequent public hearing would likely be, we've adopted that process in the past.

We'd certainly welcome any input from members at any stage of this process, but what we had proposed would be something as carefully regimented, I guess, as we can to ensure that the process of selection of potential witnesses for that meeting is as open as possible. So that was the approach that I had planned to put forward to you for your consideration. But I welcome your comments on that.

Certainly, in terms of sending information to other groups who may not yet have been involved in the process, that is more than welcome. Once we have the dates and locations of all your other meetings, including any possible video conference ones, we certainly welcome your assistance in communicating that as broadly as possible.

N. Letnick: Is this a draft of what's going to go out, or is this the item that's going out?

J. Les (Chair): That is the item that's going out that has been prepared for us.

N. Letnick: So the back cover on the bottom where it says "feedback" — there is no opportunity to amend that
[ Page 7 ]
to include video conferencing or "Send us your webcam" or any of that stuff? This has already been published, printed and delivered?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Committee Clerk): Yeah, that's true, Norm. It is a paper that is prepared by the Ministry of Finance, and it is intended, essentially, to initiate this process to begin the dialogue with British Columbians that is, essentially, now in the hands of this committee. In addition to the paper, the committee will also be able to use its own website. I have a printout of your website that I placed on each desk this morning to give you an idea of the kinds of tools that we can adopt and adapt on your behalf to communicate with the public.

We can certainly add more information there with respect to encouraging British Columbians to get involved, but I think, because the paper is essentially a government document, they have simply referred the public to this website and from there we can continue the conversation.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, if there is nothing further, motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

J. Les (Chair): We'll see you next week — maybe not in the same place but at the same time.

The committee adjourned at 10:45 a.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 © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada