Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 56 — Wednesday, November 26, 2014 (HTML)

Present: Dan Ashton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Gary Holman, MLA; Mike Morris, MLA; Jane Jae Kyung Shin, MLA; John Yap, MLA

2. Pursuant to its terms of reference, the Committee continued its review of the three-year rolling service plans, annual reports and budget estimates of the statutory officers.

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

6. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to begin deliberations in order to prepare its draft report (Simon Gibson, MLA)

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


CONTENTS
Page
Office of the Auditor General	1333
C. Bellringer
R. Jones
K. Hall
Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner	1336
S. Lowe
D. Van Swieten
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth	1345
M. Turpel-Lafond

D. Ashton (Chair): Well, good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming today. Greatly appreciated. Could I just get a motion, please, to open the meeting? Moved, seconded. Thank you.

D. Ashton (Chair): Welcome. Thank you for being here today. The floor is yours. We have the opportunity for a presentation, and there’ll be some questions. If anything is the same as the last couple days, there have been lots of questions.

I don’t need to introduce Russ Jones. You all know him very well, and he was certainly instrumental in pulling together much of the information in the budget and, more importantly, in the transition year that we refer to in the submission. He made some wonderful changes in the office that we’re going to continue with.

Katrina Hall is our comptroller. Not only has she put together the details that are included in the budget submission, but she’s also been instrumental in getting us into our new premises. We just moved over into the new offices — is it only two weeks ago? It feels in some ways like yesterday and in other ways like forever. But it took a lot of detailed planning, and she did a tremendous job.

Just to sort of walk you through a few of the key points that are included in the submission, we’re asking for a budget of $17.33 million to fund the operations of the office for the year ending March 31, 2016, and $215,000 to fund the capital expenditures for the year. It replaces some aging information technology infrastructure, including network backup system and wireless access systems.

There are a number of ways to show the increase that we’re requesting. We point out that it’s only 1 percent more than last year when you take out the occupancy cost increase. I just want to point out that last year also had a one-time move cost of $284,000 included in the budget, which is zero for the year that we’re asking, for the budget. If both of those are removed from the budget, the overall increase we’re requesting is 2.9 percent — just so as to give you an idea of the magnitude.

The occupancy costs are the largest change, though, from last year. We are now in the new premises, and the occupancy costs are just over $1.5 million each year. There are no further move costs or relocation costs, either operating or capital. That’s just the rental charges going forward.

The increase of 2.78 percent in salaries and professional services includes sufficient funds to support both an across-the-board, in effect, 1 percent wage increase and an increase in the full-time-equivalents to 117. It’s two positions more than we had previously. Those support the increased demand for information technology–related audits and to ensure required professional standards are being met. That’s a position in our quality assurance and professional practices area.

We also mention in the submission that we’re in the midst of a major strategic plan for the office, and the submission assumes no major changes to our operations for the current year.

In effect, half — and it’s a little more than that — of the staff time is allocated to financial statement audits that we’re required to conduct. The other half of our time is, and I’m really approximating here, our performance audits and other projects that we’re selecting. Those change from year to year, so when we’re getting requests or we’re considering what we’re going to do, we can absorb any of the sort of…. They sound like new projects, but they’re really just how we’ve chosen to allocate the time for the year.

We are assuming no major changes to operations. Our plans for ’16-17 and ’17-18 are not reflecting any changes either. As a result of the strategic planning exercise, if our plans do have budget implications, we’ll be bringing those back to the committee next year.

That’s all I was going to lay out, but certainly, we can answer any questions you’ve got.

J. Yap: Thanks, Carol. The occupancy costs — to what extent do you have extra space in this new office space that you’ve leased? The comments here imply that you have more space than you need.

C. Bellringer: The space that we ended up with is slightly larger than the space we thought we were going to have. We are the sole tenant in the building itself, but there is some shopfront space that the landlord is renting out on his own.

What’s an increase over what we had been expecting — I’ll get Katrina and Russ to jump in if I don’t cover it all — is there’s some common area space. When you walk in the front door, there’s an open space that we’re not ac-
[ Page 1334 ]
tually…. I mean, other than there’s a chair there, we don’t occupy that area. So it’s open, as opposed to vacant, if you get the distinction.

We have the second floor, third floor and fourth floor of the building. We’re using it all. The way it’s…. I mean, it’s not like we have a section of it that’s not occupied. Then in the basement area there was more square footage than we had thought there was going to be, but we’re not using it for office space. There’s some bicycle storage and bathrooms and things.

J. Yap: I guess my follow-up question is: are there opportunities for a sublease to recover some of your costs?

C. Bellringer: We don’t think there is. Because of the way…. As I say, the space that’s really available is just open area on the main floor by the elevators.

R. Jones: If I may, Chair. Just to add, when we came to the committee last year, we had been told by the builder that the approximate amount of space was going to be about 30,000 square feet, subject to BOMA or whatever they do to figure out what the actual square feet are. When they did the actual calculation, it came out to 32,000. We have all of our offices full. There isn’t any extra space. It was just because of that calculation that the rent went up, basically.

J. Yap: The lease rate is comparable, you’re suggesting, to other rates that are incurred by officers.

R. Jones: It is comparable. In fact, it’s lower than any of the others, per person, that are in the building. One other thing I might add is that if we had been in our new space last year with the approximate square footage we thought we were going to get, the difference between what we’re asking for next year and what it would have been is only about $160,000.

Even though it looks like it’s $500,000, the fact is that we were in our old building for most of this year — and in the new building. If you tried to make it equivalent, it’s only about a $160,000 increase.

R. Jones: Probably about 4,000 square feet, I would say, in total. You have to remember that our last location was in two different locations, so it wasn’t as efficient either. Now we have everybody in one location, which makes it much, much better.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. You mentioned the issue of special projects — that you determine, obviously, how many special projects or what special projects are taken on and that you could come back to the committee if there were more special projects or more budgetary implications with that.

I just wondered how many special projects…? Again, I know it depends on the project, because each project would have a different amount of work to it, but do you gauge a rough number of special projects with the existing budget that could be covered off?

C. Bellringer: Just to clarify, in terms of coming back to the committee, I wasn’t thinking we’d need to come back during the year, just when we’re in this same position next year. The numbers for the following two years might slightly change from what we’re predicting in this plan.

It’s a little less than 20 major projects per year. We talk 16, 17. I like to push that a little bit. I think we can probably, actually, squeeze a few more in without any impact on resourcing.

M. Morris: I’m curious. The economic stability dividend that you mention here — is it 3 percent? Is that mandated by regulation, or is that discretionary?

K. Hall: The economic stability dividend is part of the BCGEU negotiated agreement, so it’s part of the GDP recognition of the province, and that’s a mandated increase.

M. Morris: Okay. That’s not part of the 3 percent salary increase for management then?

K. Hall: The 3 percent for management was negotiated at the beginning of the current fiscal year that we’re in, and it was just announced by the B.C. Public Service Agency that all would be getting it.

E. Foster: To Russ, when we had this discussion last year, at about the same time, we were talking about the new building and so on. I’d have to look at my notes, too, but 4,000 square feet more — and I heard what you said earlier — seems like quite a bit.

I look at the rate at $50 a square foot for what you’re paying. It’s certainly not out of line. As you may know, I’m
[ Page 1335 ]
a bit of an expert on square footage and cost. I just had to throw that in. You can explain to Carol later why that is.

But 4,000 square feet is quite a bit of space. You’ve said you’re bringing in a couple more people. Were those the sort of numbers we looked at last year — the 30,000 square feet? Was that what we were looking at?

R. Jones: Yes. Last year when we brought it to you, we said the new building was going to be approximately 30,000 square feet based on the BOMA calculations — whatever that was going to be. Yeah, that’s what we said.

D. Ashton (Chair): Russ, last year when we were having the discussion about the premises…. What are the costs for carrying the old premises? Are you out of that lease now?

D. Ashton (Chair): Was that time specifically to run the lease out or the property was not available?

R. Jones: Well, one of the things that we did was…. We had an October 31 deadline that we wanted to be into the new building by. That’s when our lease at 8 Bastion Square was up. Just to be sure that we weren’t going to be without space, we negotiated with the owner an extra month. As we were getting close, that October 31 date was…. As you can imagine in a move that big, it was a bit dicey. We managed to get in there November 3. It allowed us an extra 27 days to clean up the old premises and vacate. So pretty minimal.

R. Jones: For this month, yes. Just for the one building. I think the one at 595, the lease ends the end of this month — November. So we were okay with that one. We didn’t have to pay anything extra. We were already having to pay for that lease.

D. Ashton (Chair): Have those figures been taken out of the budget for next year?

R. Jones: The figures that are in the budget for next year are strictly for the new lease — nothing more.

I had a question about the gold LEED certification. The committee requested that you undertake that certification last year. The theory there is that there’s some additional upfront cost, but over time that should theoretically reduce costs. You’re saying it’s too early for those cost savings to kind of manifest themselves in the numbers here over a three-year period. What form would those cost savings take, and how would they appear in the budget?

R. Jones: As you well remember, last year we were told to make the building LEED-certified. Hopefully, that will — as you mention, Gary — result in some operating cost savings going forward. Too early to tell right at this point in time. What we have built into the lease is that we have the ability, as auditors, to audit the operating costs to ensure that we are getting good value for money out of the owner. We will be watching that very carefully. Hopefully, the LEED gold certification will result in savings.

S. Gibson: I’m a big believer in what I call democratic offices. I know this is kind of after the fact, but I just wanted to share this. Increasingly, companies around the world are democratic where their office is. When you come into the building, you can’t tell from the offices who the boss is. In other words, the traditional model, from the old style — sort of the film noir movies — is the CEO has this massive office, and then progressively you find that sort of the drones get the little micro-offices beside the broom closet.

I’m not trying to be controversial, but did you entertain that? When you designed your floor plan — because it’s a big decision to move into a building — did you have some semblance of democracy in your offices, or did you basically: the most important gets the big office, etc.? Just a quick answer is all I need. Then I have another question.

C. Bellringer: I ended up with the result of the planning. I will point out my office is larger. Having said that, there was a process that we went through that I’ll let Russ speak to.

R. Jones: If you were to come to our office, you’ll find it’s a very open concept. Once you get to the more senior levels, they do have offices. Every one of those offices, from the assistant Auditor General down to our senior auditors, are usually on the inside of the building. The outside is where all the cubicles are that staff use — and lots of light. They’re all the same size. Just, I’d say, a typical size of any government office.

S. Gibson: My other question is…. With a new building, I was wondering if you’ve taken advantage of new technology. The Auditor General…. Every time staff move and go to Toboggan Falls or — I’m making that up — to Burns Lake or Williams Lake or anywhere off site, there’s incredible expense to the province.

Now with more teleconferencing, more technology being used as a way to save cost to the taxpayers, I’m wondering with the new building, did you take that into account, so you can do more without having to travel around, trucking staff around the province, which is very expensive.

R. Jones: Yes, we did. In each of our boardrooms we have teleconference capabilities. You’re correct. It is expensive to move around the province.

However, in a lot of cases — I think you will all appreciate this — there’s nothing like attending a meeting in person, at an audit committee or whatever. It’s very difficult to sit on the telephone for three or four hours and get the real gist of what’s going on and that personal contact. It’s very difficult for our staff to audit from the office. In some cases we do.

S. Gibson: I agree totally with that. There’s nothing better than that. However, there are ways to do research leading up to that point that can use the benefit of new technology. I just would encourage us to use that.

E. Foster: Just for clarification. I just happen to have the notes from last year delivered to me here real quick. Your numbers were pretty much smack on what you said last year, other than you were a couple hundred thousand dollars over what your total rent estimate was going to be. But other than that, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

D. Ashton (Chair): Just a quick question. I don’t know who can answer it. Management excluded, 109, schedule A — which are union, I’m assuming. Is that correct?

R. Jones: It’s a factor of our office. All of the professionals within our office, whether they are CPAs or people in our performance audit group, are management exclusion. That’s just the way the office was set up.

D. Ashton (Chair): So is that a possibility in the future? I’m just thinking of the federal tax office in Penticton, where it’s not that way. I’m just curious. Are there opportunities as we go forward for red-circling individuals and maybe replacing management with unionized staff?

R. Jones: I don’t believe there is in our office. That’s the way it has to be. They’re not all managers. Management exclusion just means it’s a category of pay.

A number of our management exclusion personnel aren’t at any higher rate than what the union is at, for sort of equivalent positions within government. It’s just that that’s the way our office has been set up, so that the bands are such that we’re in what they call management exclusion. That’s been since the office came into being.

D. Ashton (Chair): Got a brand new office, sir. Lots of changes going forward in the future. I’m just asking the question, because we’re looking for every penny.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you. I really appreciate it. If there are any other questions or comments?

C. Bellringer: The only concern I had about the phrase we use when we talk about the management excluded is that would include everything from our students that we hire. It doesn’t mean they’re managers being paid a significant salary. It goes all the way down to our entry-level people. It’s just that they’re not part of the union.

D. Ashton (Chair): What we’re going to be doing is we will have the debate and the discussion amongst ourselves and get back to you really quick.

D. Ashton (Chair): Good afternoon again. Welcome. Thank you very much for coming. I do appreciate you coming a bit early. It does help us out for this afternoon for some deliberations we have to have a little bit later.

Stan, Rollie and Dave, thank you again. A first-name basis, if you don’t mind, for everybody around the table.

So 45 minutes have been allotted. There are usually lots of questions, so maybe if you can just judge that into the presentation. The floor is yours, so please begin.

S. Lowe: Thank you very much, Mr. Ashton. I can tell you that I expect to be around 20 minutes.

Also in attendance with me today, and I want to point her out, is Andrea Spindler. Andrea has been instrumental in helping me prepare my budget submission this year, so I just wanted to acknowledge her for the record.

I’ve been looking forward, and I appreciate the opportunity, to appear once again before this very important committee to update you on our work and to place before you, for your consideration, our budget request for the next three years.
[ Page 1337 ]

I recognize a number of familiar faces from previous committees and some new faces amongst the hon. members. My intention today is to provide you with a high-level summary briefing for my formal budget submission, touching on aspects of our work that some of the members may already know about but that I think are important for the new members who are not familiar with our office to learn about.

Our office has always enjoyed the strong support of this committee over the past years in ensuring that we’ve been adequately funded to perform our important oversight function. The Legislature has been unanimous in its support of civilian oversight of law enforcement through the passage and funding of innovative legislation, which has led to improved public confidence in policing through greater transparency and accountability.

I’m pleased to advise there has also been a positive change in the policing community in terms of acceptance of civilian oversight of law enforcement and the commensurate accountability which accompanies the processes in place. This change has been most noticeable at the executive management level and has been progressing amongst the ranks to those who work on the front lines.

I will advise that we still encounter from time to time what I refer to as pockets of resistance to oversight. However, I’m confident that this resistance can be overcome by improving police confidence in our work through improved transparency and communication.

I with to thank you in advance for the opportunity to address you and look forward to any questions you may have. I have included in our package with you our service plan and our annual report for this year.

As I indicated and alluded to earlier, my submission will be a high-level briefing, so I’d like to begin by providing you with a brief description of our work. When I resort to our budget submission, I’ll direct you to the page that I’m on and the page reference.

At the outset I want you to know that the OPCC is responsible for providing oversight in relation to complaints relating to the conduct of municipal police in British Columbia. We are responsible for initiating investigations into an officer based on information received from a department or an investigator or a concerned citizen.

We also provide limited oversight services to the RCMP, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding. This oversight is in areas that fall outside the jurisdiction of the IIO. This is probably a good time for me to discuss the difference between our office and the IIO.

The primary difference is that the IIO provides oversight through investigations of police incidents involving serious harm or death to a member of the public. They provide oversight from a criminal misconduct perspective. What I mean by that is purely through the Criminal Code of Canada. So their oversight is limited to actually doing the investigation and then determining whether or not they will refer a matter to Crown counsel for charge assessment.

The OPCC provides oversight in relation to 14 types of professional misconduct, with the ability to refer some matters, criminal matters, to the prosecution service. It is a system that still relies on the police investigating the police. However, through robust legislation passed in 2010, our office has been provided with some significant oversight powers.

To give you an idea of some of the misconduct that we provide oversight on, they include abuse of authority; neglect of duty; discreditable conduct, which is a very large moniker; deceit; discourtesy; and several others.

It’s important to note, though, that our work at the OPCC, the nature of work, is really best described as a gatekeeping function. Our work is to decide whether or not we allow matters into the system or whether matters should then leave the system. When we review the determination by the police discipline process, we decide whether or not that decision should be reviewed by a retired judge in any one of three adjudicative avenues of review. We ourselves do not determine whether or not an officer has committed misconduct. There are adjudicative processes in place dedicated to that determination.

I’ll take you to the first page in my overview of my submissions. As I alluded to earlier — and I’ll just speak to you at this point and not read directly from it — in March 31 of 2010 there were significant amendments to the Police Act in British Columbia.

These amendments were passed by a unanimous House, and the foundation of these amendments were the recommendations of the late Josiah Wood, QC and appellate court justice as well as judge of our Provincial Court, in a report on his review of the police complaint process in 2007.

In May 2012 the OPCC underwent a legislative audit mandated by the Police Act in which a special committee of the Legislature endorsed the positive findings of the office of the Auditor General in their audit of selected police complaints. The audit was favourable in terms of the work of the OPCC.

However, the Auditor General identified two systemic concerns involving the delay in completion of investigations and the lack of a formal training of staff at police detachments on the receipt and handling of complaints. Since this audit the OPCC has taken steps to address these recommendations. I know that the hon. member for Vernon-Monashee was a member of that particular special committee and could serve as a resource to this committee if there are any questions that arise out of their work in that matter.

Encapsulating what we do as work, the nature of our oversight responsibilities, as I alluded to earlier, are gatekeeping functions. They can be listed in general terms as
[ Page 1338 ]
the following. We determine the admissibility of all registered complaints. When someone complains we decide whether or not they are admissible within the system and whether they should go through the system itself.

We also have an auditing and reviewing — all questions and concerns not resulting in a formal complaint received from police departments — to determine if an investigation is warranted. We also review all reportable injuries to determine if an investigation is warranted, and I’ll expand on that later on.

We also order investigations, as and when required, in the public interest. Often, at the request of the police or as information becomes known to our office, we can initiate an investigation into a matter which, if proven, would constitute misconduct pursuant to the act.

We also contemporaneously oversee all complaint investigations and, where required, direct investigative steps. This is one of the sweeping powers that were provided through the legislation that allows us, actually, to implant or imbed ourselves into the police investigation of the misconduct complaint and provide advice and direction with respect to the investigative steps. I can advise you that no other agency in Canada shares that same power.

Finally, we review all the decisions to determine whether an adjudicative review is required, and if so, we provide a support function. As I alluded to earlier, there are three avenues of adjudicated review.

I’d like to take you to page 2. I’ll skip the other areas — what I may do.

I just want to let you know that we continue to face workload challenges associated with our oversight responsibilities, but we have managed these pressures by providing internal efficiencies and business practices regarding staffing and promoting a strong emphasis on alternative dispute resolution of appropriate police complaints. I’ll expand on that later. The OPCC is currently working under a challenging workload while maintaining a high standard of oversight and professionalism.

I just want to provide a brief summary of my budget request at the outset. I remind the committee that last year’s committee approved a budget increase for fiscal 2015-16 of $25,000. But in addition to that, in order for us to provide quality service to the stakeholders and members of the public, as an important function of our office, we’ve identified a gap in service in our operations in terms of administrative support which impacts our overall efficiency and the effectiveness of our office.

As a result, in addition to the sums that I’m confirming today from the committee, we are respectfully requesting a modest increase to our budget to add a part-time administrative support staff member. I will elaborate on that position and why we need that position in a short period of time.

Finally, I am also respectfully requesting an increase in funding for the fiscal year 2015-16 to offset an increase in salaries approved by the government in March of this year for management-excluded employees.

What I hope, in my submissions, will become abundantly clear as we review our statement of operations and other aspects of our work is that there is really not a lot of discretionary funding found within our budget. I’ll take you directly to that in a short period of time.

Let me tell you a bit about our operations. As I alluded to earlier, there was a special committee to audit selected police complaints. The statute requires that the committee be convened no less than every six years to review the Police Act process. The focus of the audit was on the new process, as it was then, and whether or not we were meeting the procedural challenges of the act.

The Auditor General was retained to perform the audit, and they released a very positive report in terms of compliance as well as the work of our office. Their key findings were that police complaints were being addressed in compliance with the act, that our office promotes thorough and competent investigations of police complaints by exercising discretion, as provided by the act, and that we’ve taken steps consistent with the act to increase public awareness of the police complaint process.

We have — and I can tell you now, as an update from that report — taken steps to address the recommendations from the special committee, as adopted by the special committee from the Auditor General. We have just released a package of training for reviewing and handling of complaints as well as further guidance on disclosure.

We are still encountering difficulty in the area of the delay in the process that was identified. Having said that, there is a limited amount of impact that our office can have in terms of timelines, as they’re set out under the act. We are hoping that we can further address this delay in future legislative change.

It’s an understatement for me to say at this time that I’m very proud to work alongside a staff of dedicated and skilled public servants. That audit itself is a reflection of their hard work, in my mind.

If we may turn to page 4, this is a summary of our workload. This gives you an idea of our day-to-day work and what constitutes our work. This section is intended to provide the committee with a screenshot of our work and the workload since the revisions to the Police Act.

I have two statistical riders that I’d like to raise at the outset. You will note in the chart on page 4 that there is the 2010-2011 year, and that will be in a number of other charts and graphs. I can advise you that that year was what I would refer to as a transitional year. There were still a number of complaints under the old system, so I have concerns with respect to the reliability of the data in that time period. But most certainly, from the period 2011-12 and on, in my view, the data is fairly reliable.
[ Page 1339 ]

Another aspect — and we’ve identified this in our service plan — is that the nature and quality of our statistics are limited at this point in time because our statistical analysis is something that we’ve dedicated to something on the side of our desk. The first priority is our oversight work.

So we are engaging in a strategic plan in which we hope to improve the nature of the information that we are able to obtain, our information management, and improve upon the quality of our statistics to give the public a better idea of our work.

The first area under “The files opened” is basically…. Since March 31, 2010, until September 30, 2014, we have opened over 5,025 files. These are all different file types, but each of them requires an aspect of oversight. Initially, this was an increase of 100 percent in terms of our file load in relation to previous years.

The chart at the bottom shows the totals for files. They range from 1,142 in 2010 to last year’s 1,060. And after two quarters this year we’re on line to exceed 1,000 file types. Each of those is a matter in which we conduct oversight.

Page 5. I’m going to move through that page. It’ll provide the committee with, if you’re intent on reading this material, an idea of each type of file that we provide oversight on in our oversight role.

I’ll take you quickly to page 6 and admissibility, because this is one of our important oversight factors and gatekeeping roles.

I’ve made a strong commitment to a front-end complaint process, as envisaged under the act, to provide a reliable yet stringent admissibility process in order to properly conduct our gatekeeping function. We’ve hired a dedicated analyst. Statistically, of the 2,533 registered complaints received from the public between the March 31, 2010, date and September 30, 2014, 1,127 were deemed admissible — about 45 percent. These were forwarded to the municipal police departments for investigation.

This enhanced admissibility screening has translated into a substantial decrease in the number of complaints forwarded to professional standards sections for informal resolution or formal investigation as compared to past years. The decrease in the volume of the investigations has reduced the strain on police resources and allowed departments to allocate more time and resources to more serious complaints that are complex and comprehensive in nature.

On average, it takes approximately 19 days for our office to conduct a full and comprehensive admissibility review. When we talk about an admissibility review, it does often involve engaging the complainant, interviewing the complainant and finding exactly what the source of their issue is. What is the source of their complaint? At times, we may also contact the police to obtain documentation to give us a better contextual landscape in which to conduct an admissibility assessment.

But what I do want to make clear is that we do not weigh the evidence at this stage. What we find, just based on the information we’ve received from the complainant itself…. It has provided a very valid screening process to put our efforts in this area.

As I say, 45 percent is probably one of the lowest rates in Canada. I think that in Ontario they’re slightly higher. As I understand it, a deviation of 3 is viewed as significant, and I think that in Ontario, with oversight of over 30,000 officers, their rate of admissibility is just hovering around 50 to 51 percent.

I will note that this year, though, we did encounter an anomaly where our admissibility rate has been 30 percent, which hastened us to undertake an internal audit of a number of complaints to make sure that we were properly assessing these via our gatekeeping function and admissibility. Our audit was positive that we were making the right decisions on the front end.

Page 7 is reportable injuries. I specifically want to speak about these because they are a part of our statistics and our oversight. Municipal police departments are required to report all incidents where an individual in the care or custody of the police suffers a reportable injury that requires emergency care by a medical practitioner and a transfer to a hospital.

An experienced analyst will carefully review each of these notifications and the accompanying information to make a determination whether an investigation under the Police Act is warranted. This will often involve liaising with police agencies to receive further information regarding the circumstances of the incident or the nature of the injury. The OPCC also tracks the types of force used in each of these cases.

Since April 2010 we’ve noticed an increase in the number of reportable injury files opened by our offices. Approximately 11 percent of reportable injury files submitted to the OPCC last year resulted in ordered investigations. I can tell you, also, from an oversight perspective, these are files that are often time-consuming and require some expertise in being able to intuitively decipher some of the medical information and concerns that arise.

Page 8 of my submission. I would like to discuss with you at this time the disposition of allegations. I alluded earlier to all the different file types that we conduct oversight on. Each one, I should advise you, may involve one allegation of misconduct. Some may involve numerous allegations of misconduct. Every allegation of misconduct must be investigated and individually adjudicated through the police discipline process.

Currently, we only have the ability to track how allegations were determined during the same time period. We use fiscal years as the time period for measurement. When we compare the same time period over successive years, we’re able to ascertain some rudimentary patterns.

But while a large number of allegations may be inves-
[ Page 1340 ]
tigated and reviewed in one fiscal year, there still remain a significant number of allegations which take more than a year. Often we may have same incidents which involve criminal prosecutions. We find that those are very lengthy matters in which we await the outcome of the criminal process.

The chart on page 8. What it points out is that of the 45 percent of complaints that we make admissible, approximately 40 percent of those complaints will not require a full investigation. Effectively, only 27 percent of all initial complaints from the public result in a full investigation.

Where I wish to draw your attention is to the types of conclusions or dispositions that are set out in the chart on page 8. If you add up the discontinuations, the informally resolved, the mediated, the withdrawn, it amounts to 39 percent. We work hard…. Even though we’ve made a matter admissible, there still is another process in which we constantly monitor to determine whether or not the matter should continue through the system.

Page 9. I’d like to raise with you the topic of alternative dispute resolution. I’ve identified alternative dispute resolution as a legacy project with the OPCC. We have been incorporating steps into our strategic revisioning plan to ensure that ADR remains an integral part of the OPCC.

Our experience has shown that there are a large number of police complaints that are better suited to alternative dispute resolution than undergoing an extensive investigation and having a third party deliver a decision. By directly participating in the solution to the dispute, the majority of complainants and members come away from the process with a more meaningful and positive level of satisfaction.

A meaningful resolution of a complaint through alternative dispute resolution promotes lasting change amongst the parties and restores public confidence in policing, one relationship at a time. Our statistics have shown that those who are complainants, who complain in the process, and who go through alternative dispute resolution rarely complain again. Officers that are part of the process through alternative dispute resolution, again, rarely come back as the subject of a complaint.

We have partnered with an experienced mediator and arbitrator who provides conflict resolution training to police officers. We offer one-day seminars that we co-sponsor. To date we’ve trained over 150 officers in informal resolution level 1, and we are creating a level 2 course. It’s our hope that we will train more and more officers to become proficient in this area.

Our goal at the OPCC is to lead the country in alternative dispute resolution of police complaints. It’s a priority. The number of our allegations resolved through this process has grown substantially. However, I can tell you that for the past two years we seem to have hit a plateau. It’s my intention that I will raise with the government a legislative change that would make alternative dispute resolution pretrial conferences mandatory under the act in hopes that we could capture perhaps another 10 or 15 percent of complaints that I think could be resolved by informal resolution.

If you look at page 10, it provides you with an idea of the percentage growth of informal resolutions over the years. We begin with ’10-11 when the act came in, but I can tell you that the previous year was around 7 percent. As you’ll see, we see a growth of 15, 21, 25, 25. That’s where we’ve plateaued. This year, so far, it’s much lower at 14 percent, but that’s probably best explained by the much lower admissibility rate.

Page 11. Memoranda of understanding. As part of our oversight work, we do work with the independent investigations office of British Columbia. Last year we had only 25 cases which I would call same-incident cases. But what we’ve implemented to reduce redundancies…. We’ve implemented a practical process which basically awaits, in our Police Act process, the findings of the IIO. As well, we have a memorandum of understanding for sharing of information.

One of our analysts will receive all the investigative materials from the IIO. It’s at that point in time we make a determination of whether or not a further Police Act investigation is required or whether it would be redundant. We’ve found that this practice itself is one that we would be recommending to government to encapsulate in legislation.

In terms of redundancy, we’ve eliminated that, process-wise. But as I say, of our caseload and of our investigation load, really, the crossover is in only 25 cases a year, when we typically deal with over 300 cases that go to investigation.

We also have an MOU with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This is an MOU that we’re pleased to provide services to the provincial police force in cases that are not within the jurisdiction of the IIO — for example, cases not involving serious harm or death but are serious cases. We provide a function where we review the investigations. If we are of the view that it should be referred to Crown counsel for a charge assessment, the RCMP will facilitate that without issue.

I can tell you that we also are proud of our relationship with the RCMP. They have, as a provincial police force, provided personnel to conduct external investigations for us. It’s an aspect of their work that we sincerely appreciate.

Page 12 is a portion of my submission that’s dedicated to a civilian presence in the OPCC. As stated in previous budgets, we’re committed to promoting and maintaining a strong civilian presence in positions engaged in oversight. We’re pleased to advise the committee that approximately 50 percent of our staff in decision-making positions are from civilian backgrounds. Many of our most senior analysts come from a civilian background.

It’s important, in my view, to maintain a proper balance in staffing, ensuring that we have the necessary skill
[ Page 1341 ]
sets in place to provide efficient and effective oversight. All analysts from the civilian backgrounds have completed an intensive in-house mentoring and training program. This program allowed them to graduate to the pay scale of a senior investigative analyst. We were able to carry a salary gap the past two years, which now has resulted in that salary gap being exhausted.

This intensive in-house program takes approximately four years to train people to conduct what I would view as moderately complex oversight.

We are confident that we will be able to provide a work environment that provides an attractive balance between work and life and that our staff may enjoy long careers in the public service.

I do want to digress for a moment to mention to you that this is a difficult area of oversight. If you were to advise an entry-level analyst that they will be working in a complaint system for the next 25 years, it’s hard to make that look attractive to them. What we’ve tried to do is create a great office environment but provide assistance in terms of work-life balance and an emphasis on alternative dispute resolution to try to balance off what at times can be an acrimonious environment.

Page 13 is dedicated to our adjudicative reviews. I’ll let you review that section on your own, as it describes what the process is. However, at page 14 I do take a moment to discuss with you the adjudicative and legal expenses.

As I have related to the past committee last year and to previous committees, it’s very difficult to predict with any certainty the budgetary expenditures for legal expenses associated with the adjudications. There are three avenues of adjudications. We have been lucky to enjoy the support from the committee, who have increased our annual funding for adjudicative and legal expenses this current year from $300,000 to $400,000.

This funding is dedicated funding, which means that any unspent funds revert directly back to the provincial treasury. They cannot be encroached upon by our office and our operations. They are stand-alone funds that are specifically dedicated to adjudicative and legal expenses.

I provide these charts to give you an idea of the expenditures since 2010 and ’11. There is a zero and a question mark at 2010-11. I believe that that was $100,000 that year. Initially, it began at $50,000.

I can tell you, just as an anecdote, that when I began in 2009, I had a $50,000 budget, and within the first month of being the commissioner, I was handed a $102,000 legal bill. At that point in time, I realized that…. It began to open up our problem with respect to the lack of funding in this particular area. But the committee has been very responsive where I’ve been able to demonstrate a need for the funding. And as you will see, in the past three years we come in or around the $400,000 level.

Many of these adjudicative processes are ones in which it goes off to an adjudicator with a process. We simply sign the bill. We sign the cheques, and we pay for the expenses of the process.

The second chart you’ll see at the bottom of page 14 is our current expenses in the first and second quarter. Our projected costs are exceeding the $450,000, but I’m confident that that overage can be covered or made up within our own existing budget. I’m not filling a current position for a period of time until I get a better understanding of the landscape of what our expenses may be in the final quarter of this fiscal year.

At page 15 I just wanted to highlight one aspect of the unpredictability of our work. Page 15 sets out three mandatory public hearings. When an officer faces dismissal as a potential discipline arising out of a finding of misconduct, they are, under the act, entitled to a public hearing. If they request, I must call a public hearing.

I list three cases. One of them was completed near the end of the last fiscal year, and two are in this current fiscal year. But you can see that with three mandatory hearings, they can easily eat up 60 percent of that adjudicated budget.

Page 16 is our key priorities, which I’ll let you read. I’ll get down to brass tacks at page 17. It’s our request….

S. Lowe: Yes. I’m right on the last page, Dan, and I’ll get to our request for funding.

As I alluded to earlier, last year’s committee approved an expenditure this year — an increase in budget of $25,000. I am seeking an increase of $85,000 to our operating budget, commencing 2015-2016, to offset an increase in non-discretionary costs outside the control of our office, as well as a discretionary cost to hire a part-time administrative support staff member. The increases are set out, as I said, on the page — $25,000 that’s already been approved. The mandatory salary increases are 3 percent.

The part-time person I’m seeking is actually a 0.8 person, which is at $44,000. So the new funding request for this year would be $85,000, with a total funding request of $110,000.

Four years ago I spoke with the committee. That was the last time that I asked for additional hiring, and I predicted that I wouldn’t need hiring for three years. I’ve managed to stretch that for four years. If you are so inclined to provide that funding, that 0.80 person, I don’t foresee any further staffing needs for at least two years, if not further, unless there is change in any legislative commitments that we have in terms of our office.

Our statement of operations and our proposed budget by standard object of expenditures are on pages 18 and 19 of my submissions, as well as an explanation of those particular STOBs that are contained in those charts.
[ Page 1342 ]

Finally, page 21 — and I’ll end on this page. It really is a pie chart of discretionary spending. As you’ll see, our salary and benefits constitute 58 percent of our spending; professional services, 15 percent; space and rent, 11 percent; other operating expenses, 5 percent; amortization, 2 percent; and travel, 2 percent.

If you look at the footnote, if I take a conservative estimation in terms of what discretionary spending we have — and you’ll see how I’ve arrived at that — at 50 percent of travel, 50 percent of professional services and 25 percent of office expenses, we have less than 5 percent discretionary funding that we can actually move around and have a say about. The remainder, 95 percent, are fixed expenses.

The final chart is page 22, and that’s our proposed share of our shared office services through our shared services. I think you’ve heard of that from other commissioners.

Sorry for going over. Those are my submissions to you, and I’m happy to answer any questions you have at this time.

M. Morris: I’ve got three questions. The first one. I noticed you don’t have any reviews on the record. My previous experience on the Health Professions Review Board…. When we started that process, we had quite a few public hearings but realized the significant costs associated to that.

We went towards a review on the record to the extent possible. There was still the odd time when we had to have a public hearing on that, but we were able to get the consensus of both parties to do a review on the record. We found that significantly cut our costs back in that area. Have you explored that?

S. Lowe: Yes. I can tell you that we’ve had four reviews on the record. Three were as a result of members’ requests. The problem we have is what I think is a procedural anomaly, which I hope to address through legislative change.

The review on the record is based on the record from a discipline proceeding. What we’ve found is an anomaly that exists in the act in which it’s the member that decides which witnesses are called at a discipline hearing. Unfortunately, all the discipline hearings that have taken place have only involved police witnesses. The actual complainant has never been called to testify and provide evidence in that hearing.

My recommendation to government will be that the discipline authority can call whatever material witnesses are required to resolve the issue or the complaint itself and to investigate the complaint. To make it simple, it’s just been the police officer that’s called himself to testify.

From an accountability standpoint, there’s not much of a record to review. What we’ve found is, if you look at it, we really resort to public hearings about once a year, which is fairly low. Once we get that anomaly, I’m with you — review on the record. In fact, I could see the public hearings going the way of a dodo and having everything litigated within the discipline proceeding.

M. Morris: Just a couple of quick ones. What does a senior analyst make? What’s their annual salary?

M. Morris: Last question. Does your office reimburse the RCMP when they come in and do external investigations for you?

S. Lowe: No. What we do is look at matters for them and provide oversight, and they’re kind enough to do investigations for us. It’s an exchange of services. The act does statutorily say that the RCMP can be brought as an external police department. That is a source of concern with respect to the RCMP, but they’ve been very good to our office.

I had a question on page 18 — the actual versus the budgeted amount for 2013-14. It looks like there’s an underspend there. Most of it’s in salaries and employee benefits. What’s the reason for that? Is it a turnover issue?

Also, what’s it looking like for the current year in terms of…? Although it’s only part of the year through, so it’s perhaps hard to tell. But what’s it looking like through the current year in terms of the…? Are you seeing an underspend situation developing again?

S. Lowe: That’s a great question. What has happened is…. I referred to a salary gap earlier in my submissions. What we did within this training program — rather than bring a new person in, a civilian, at the 92 percent of the $77,000 — is we actually decided to follow a merit-based approach, basically, and say: “Look. You’re coming in at $49,000. Each year that you develop towards being able to do the analyst work, you’ll be rewarded in compensation.”
[ Page 1343 ]

The last two years were two years in which four of the members were moving through this graduated process. So they were not at the $77,000 mark. This year, after four years of hard work and toil, they are now being paid the full amount. So that gap that you saw, that shortage, no longer exists.

Also, what I say is a contingency matter…. I am slow to fill vacancies while keeping an eye on that adjudicative budget. In the past I have been slow, and it has been a burden sometimes on the office and its operations. That was really, as I say, before…. We have very little discretionary spending, so if I didn’t fill the vacancy right away, it created a bit of a salary gap to offset, in the past, adjudicative expenses which exceeded the budget.

This year I see us being right on, on our salary budget, to answer your question more directly. In the past two years I think I’ve explained that through the gaps.

S. Gibson: A few quick questions. My understanding is you also examine the behaviour of off-duty officers.

S. Gibson: So if somebody is acting inappropriately in a social setting — perhaps using certain threatening language, whatever it may be — and there’s a complaint, you investigate those too. Is that correct?

S. Lowe: Right. It comes under the rubric of what’s known…. In misconduct it’s called discreditable conduct. It’s the only conduct that can be applied for off-duty officers. What we typically see are those officers that may encounter…. For example, immediate roadside suspensions may be the subject of that, allegations of spousal assault or interactions that may be criminal. You’re absolutely right. Those are matters involving conduct that still must fall under the rubrics set out under the Police Act.

S. Gibson: Can you use the element of surprise? If you hear that there’s some situation in a particular police department, can you kind of show up announced, a surprise, or is it all done under a procedure where the police chief knows about it, etc.?

S. Lowe: It’s all done in a process where we provide notification to all parties. However, you can withhold notification of an investigation as part of an investigative tool. I can tell you that most of the most serious allegations of misconduct are often found by executive management in policing agencies. They often contact us immediately. We open what we call a monitoring file. They actually either do the investigation itself or begin an external. They have withheld notice as an investigative step. That’s something they do use sparingly.

S. Gibson: What about systemic problems? Say you determine that one police department…. And I’m not trying to be controversial. I’m not saying this is the case. You say: “Well, one police department seems to be having consistently, per capita, more problems than other comparable police departments.” Is that something you also monitor?

S. Lowe: Yes. One thing that we do is…. Part of my approach is a consultative approach.

We often come and speak to the executive management and kind of give them a bit of a statistical report card of saying: “This is what we’re seeing a lot of — this type of misconduct. Perhaps you can have your professional standards do some proactive work in this area.”

We also speak to police boards about that. We basically let them know kind of the lay of the land with respect to each of their agencies, so you’re right. We try to provide a specialized service. What we’re hoping to do is improve our statistics so we can look at trends and be able to provide more valuable input.

Part of our job is not only doing oversight; it’s to promote professionalism, so we’re trying to take a proactive approach at matters.

S. Gibson: In the case of complainants…. I come out of a local government background. I’m certainly aware that you get complainants that are frivolous, or they use the means available to them to draw attention to themselves beyond any particular need.

Do you have capacity? Say I come and complain to New West police department. Do you have the capacity to research me, to look into if I’ve got a prison record or some kind of previous conduct that would lead you to believe that it’s a frivolous complaint and you could discard it?

S. Lowe: To answer that, how we deal with frivolous complaints is we have a pretty robust system of gathering information. The term is often used. Those are “repetitive complainers.” We have a very strong documented history for individuals. With those that have a history of complaints, we like to engage them in that robust front-end process and say: “What are you complaining about? What are the aspects of that?”
[ Page 1344 ]

We find that although there are some frivolous complaints, they’re usually from people that are, unfortunately, emotionally disturbed. But we do a pretty good job of weeding those complaints out. I can assure you of that.

G. Heyman: Pardon my ignorance of your process, but would it be fair to say that all public hearings are driven by complaints from either the public or police management themselves?

S. Lowe: I’d say public hearings…. Those are components, but there have been public hearings as a result of investigations that we’ve initiated, that have gone through the police discipline system and that we’ve determined should go to a public hearing.

G. Heyman: Are the results of public hearings anything more than recommendations, for instance?

S. Lowe: No. They make a determination of whether or not there is misconduct, and they can apply discipline or corrective measures.

G. Heyman: Is it legislatively mandated that your budget picks up the cost of these hearings?

S. Lowe: Yes. But what we’ve done is also created — the courts have given us guidance — an arm’s-length relationship where we have…. The funds sit in that, and it’s administered by other than the OPCC. It’s administered by our shared services just so that we can stay at arm’s length.

The appointment of these adjudicators — retired judges — is done by the Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and then, as these matters rise up, I assign these appointments.

S. Lowe: Yes. That’s why, when you look at our budget…. When you see $3.125 million, if you take out $400,000, which is dedicated spending — which means we can’t touch it — and then you take our share of shared services, it actually comes in at about $2.6 million as our real operating budget. The other matters are dedicated to other sources.

S. Gibson: A quick question. Do you use any elements of restorative justice in your procedures?

S. Lowe: Yes. Alternative dispute resolution is front and centre. We’re training police officers. We have gotten to the point where, even though it doesn’t say we can do it under our act, we send a letter out when we make a matter admissible, saying: “This one really looks like it should be informally resolved.”

I think the next step is really to seek help from government and say: if you have a complaint, and if we determine it’s an appropriate complaint — some pretty serious ones need to go through to investigation — then we should compel everyone to go to this pretrial conference. If you don’t want to participate at that stage, then we shouldn’t go ahead with the complaint.

That’s the process in Quebec, and they enjoy about an 80 percent resolution rate — very high. It’s the outcomes, the changes in mindsets, the reparation of relationships between the police and community that I think can’t be underestimated.

Do you have any ability in the case of a public hearing that is initiated by a complaint or initiated by a discipline proceeding to actually charge for the costs of the hearing, or is that prohibited by legislation?

S. Lowe: No, it’s not prohibited by legislation. The costs are just defined already to be paid by our office. It’s something that comes out of our office. The legislation itself…. I know where you’re coming from. A lot of different types of funding views have come out through the system.

Some say to fund complaints through the municipalities, based on the number of complaints — that that department should pay that out. But the system since 1998 has been one where there was funding set in place for adjudicative avenues. It’s basically provided through our office but administered through a third party. So the answer is no.

Now, I have to let you know that there is a gatekeeping function to a public hearing. Public hearings don’t get there just as a matter of course except where they involve dismissal or demotion of an officer.

A complainant has to apply, and our office has to agree. We’re fairly frugal, with one public hearing, on average, a year. It’s where we disagree with the decision or where there’s an overriding public interest to have a public hearing and an airing.

We find that the residual effect is it provides us with a lot of adjudicative guidance, because those in executive management doing police discipline have the benefit of retired judges providing the process, the thinking processes and how they arrive at conclusions.

I would say that for every public hearing there’s a commensurate reduction in the need for other files to go to public hearings because they’ve resolved that particular issue.

G. Heyman: The public hearing wouldn’t actually replace disciplinary arbitration?
[ Page 1345 ]

S. Lowe: No. I have to tell you that the quality of the public hearings and the manner in which they’re conducted has changed significantly during my appointment.

They’re now primarily special prosecutors. But these public hearing are being done in two days, three days. They’re no longer these long monoliths that take weeks and weeks. There are some that do take some time, but most often they’re very quick. People comment on how quick the process is. So we’ve tried to speed that up.

D. Ashton (Chair): Four times. So A question and a challenge, maybe, to you. You have a broader cross-section. It’s a bit difficult for the committee, as we come forward, to hear everything, to tabulate it and to come to a decision, because we’re not as hands-on as an individual like yourself.

I would just challenge for the opportunity of creep, of crossed opportunities, and maybe just ask you to think about if there are opportunities that we, as a committee, might not see or might not be able to comprehend?

Your feet are on the ground for four of these standing officers. And it’s nothing derogatory against the standing officers or any of their employees, but there is an opportunity that you get to see on a continual basis that we don’t. I would just ask you maybe to think about it.

D. Ashton (Chair): Good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming today. Nice to see everybody again. Mary Ellen and John and Dianne, once again, thanks for being here. If you don’t mind, first name basis, because we’re kind of a friendly crowd.

As you saw what happened before, there are about 20-ish minutes for a presentation, up to 20 minutes plus for questions. There are usually quite a few questions.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Well, first of all, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this opportunity to come forward and speak to the budget for the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth.

I have with me to my left, your right, John Greschner, the deputy representative.

To my right, your left, I have Dianne Buljat, who’s the director for finances for my office. She is a new addition to our office this year. In the past number of years we’ve had Tanis McNally-Dawes, who retired. We’re very delighted to have Dianne join our office this year — not only join but get fully immersed in the issue.

This is her first appearance before a standing committee. She is a long-serving public servant. Before she joined the representative’s office, she was a public servant at Justice and Attorney General. Please be easy on her today. I’d like her to return next year.

Also in the gallery I have some senior members of the representative’s office that I’d just like to introduce for you. Some of the members of this committee also serve on the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, but just to identify who they are so you can put a face to the names and also get an idea of the diversity of the staff and the different program areas that they’re responsible for.

I have Jeff Rud, who’s the director of communications. I have Dawn Thomas-Wightman, who is chief investigator and deals with critical injury and death investigations. I have Bill Naughton, who is the associate deputy representative for critical injury and death investigations as well as the monitoring area. I have Melanie Mark, who is the associate deputy representative for advocacy, aboriginal and community relations.

I’m very fortunate that they’ve joined me today. Certainly, we are here to formally answer any questions you have — and informally.

A couple of points, I think, of good news, perhaps, from the committee’s perspective. First of all, I am coming before the committee now for my fourth appearance and asking for a stand-pat budget, which means I’m not asking for an increase to my budget. That is with careful consideration, including the fact that we have had an expansion of our mandate in the last year. We had a small adjustment to allow for that. I’m not asking for further increases, and I’m doing that because I’m mindful of the fact that there are difficult economic circumstances in British Columbia. My proposal today is to continue to manage within the budget envelope that we have enjoyed year over year.

The other part of the good news is that my presentation, I’m hoping, will be among the shortest — in part, because I think the members of the committee are familiar with the work of the representative’s office.

Certainly, in preparing for today and looking at my advocacy caseload — we’ve had about 13,000 advocacy cases over the past seven years — I had a look and noticed that there are advocacy cases in my office from every constituency for all the members represented here.
[ Page 1346 ]
I know members are well familiar with the work that we do, in terms of advocating for children and youth in British Columbia — well aware of the mandate of the office with respect to overseeing the child-serving system, the work of the Ministry of Children and Families and its six main service lines — and also the job that we have to use, essentially, powers of public inquiry to investigate and report on the critical injuries and deaths of children.

So I’m not going to spend any time describing the functions. I’m happy to answer any questions. I’m not going to spend any time. It’s well described in our annual report and service plan that we’ve tabled.

Because I am very fortunate to work closely with the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, I tabled the service plan there. We have a comprehensive set of performance measures that we’ve worked out over the last number of years with the select standing committee. We have a robust and good working and reporting relationship to that committee, in terms of the reports and work of the office but also sometimes receiving recommendations for work from that committee. It’s a very positive relationship. We have appeared some 30 times over the years before the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.

That committee, for instance, this year asked us to do a report to find out: how are our reports are being implemented, the recommendations being implemented? We did recently produce a report on that. We’ll go back to the committee. We’ll talk about that. So we’re very engaged with Members of the Legislative Assembly. We feel that’s a very significant part of our accountability. We’re grateful for that.

I’d also just say this, more generally, about being grateful. We’re very grateful to have an office like the representative’s office. I’m very fortunate to have an excellent staff. We have 56 full-time employees in the office in Victoria, in Burnaby and in Prince George. I think we’re the only independent office that has an office outside the beltway, if you like. Prince George is important.

If we had a different financial scenario in our province, I would love to set up an office in the Interior. I have a great demand for advocacy services — either out of Kelowna or Kamloops. That is a longer-term ambition.

It’s important in our office that we get out and see people, that we serve the entire province and understand the needs of children and youth throughout the province. But the important point is service. We’re very grateful to have a budget. We’re very grateful to the taxpayers of British Columbia and to Members of the Legislative Assembly that we actually can do the type of work that we do. We appreciate it. We take that responsibility very seriously.

With respect to our budget, we take our budget seriously. We attempt to manage very closely within budget. Last year we returned a small surplus of $1,000. We try to run a pretty tight ship. But we did return $1,000. Dianne can tell you more about that if you want to know all the details.

We really watch it very carefully. We do have a very strong commitment to prudence but also a very strong sense of the honour and obligation of public service, particularly in this area. I say that because we’re often overseeing a child-serving system where we work with some of the most deeply vulnerable children and their families, including communities that often find themselves with a lot of disadvantage.

We’re mindful of how important public services and private supports are and mindful of how important it is that public resources be spent to good measure to make sure that there are real services on the ground for children who need them. That has motivated us to come back for a stand-pat budget but, also, just to again put on the record what a great honour it is to be able to do this kind of public service.

Our budget request for fiscal 2015-2016 and our proposed rolling budget for 2017-2018 has been submitted to you. There is one proviso I would make, and that is perhaps influenced a little bit by the spirit of collective bargaining in British Columbia over the last year. I’d like to put forward a bit of a me-too clause. I am not asking for an adjustment to the budget to deal with the public service increases that were out of my control but resulted in increased salaries in my organization.

We have observed a freeze. No one in my office has received a salary increase. We had the same freeze as has existed throughout the PSA. So we’ve respected that same approach, as an independent office, and felt we should be consistent with that.

But as you know, there was a 3 percent salary increase extended to excluded employees, and the impact to our organization will be about $150,000 annually. The 1 percent salary increase to schedule A employees — the impact will be about $5,500 annually. And the 1 percent benefit chargeback will affect us by about $45,000 annually. I have not asked for an increase to offset that. I have noted that in the presentations of other independent officers they have asked you for that.

I am prepared to manage within the budget. However, should you grant that adjustment to others, I would like — to borrow a phrase from public sector bargaining, I guess — me-too. I would like you to consider, out of fairness, how that will affect all of the other offices. So I’m prepared to manage within budget, but if you do grant it to someone else, I think it does introduce an element of unfairness.

I put that out. I will respect, of course, and live with whatever decision. I just put that on the table. As I say, I’m prepared to absorb it. However, there are some consequences of doing that with respect to the work.

In terms of the budget proposal today, I’m requesting a total operating budget of $7.9 million for fiscal 2015-2016. As I said at the outset, that supports a staff of ap-
[ Page 1347 ]
proximately 55.4 or 56 FTEs, full-time employees, in those three locations.

There’s a small capital request of $50,000. That just goes to furniture and equipment. In particular, $30,000 goes to IT issues, which are regular upgrades that are required to make sure — particularly around monitoring those advocacy cases and meeting our reporting requirements — that we can do so.

I am not going to go through the performance measures. As I say, they’ve been tabled in the annual report and service plan, and we recently reported on them. I am also not going to speak at length about the work that was done in the past year because, again, it has been fully reported on.

I will just say that the budget request will allow us to continue to operate a robust advocacy program for children and youth, an advocacy program that was expanded to the 19- to 24-year-old special needs individuals who are transitioning into CLBC. We’ve done that now for one year with an expanded mandate.

Again, we continue to work within budget in that area, although there may be some pressures. If there was an enormous set of pressures — not being able to conduct a proper investigation or not being able to undertake an area — I would, of course, return to the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth and consult with them about that — if that budget limit caused a concern.

The depth and complexity of the work in the representative’s office, I think, is probably known quite well to the members around the table. We are engaged in some rather large undertakings. As you know, last year we did a major piece of work looking at aboriginal child welfare activities in British Columbia.

It required us to look at in excess of 40,000 documents, hundreds of interviews. We looked at in-total spending by the government of about $66 million over a period of years and as to whether or not children actually benefitted from that. That was a massive undertaking.

When that report was completed, I thought it was very unlikely that we will ever do something as vast and massive as that, because it just was really at the edge of the capacity of any organization, particularly because we got boxes upon boxes that had no tabulation or organization and that were just sent to us from government.

This year, though, we do have a massive piece of work, and it’s growing. That is, we are looking at a cluster of sexual assaults: 160 sexual assaults, primarily on adolescent girls who are connected with the child welfare system, primarily aboriginal girls who are connected with the child welfare system. In the context of reviewing and preparing a public report on those 160 sexual assaults, my staff will be conducting over 100 interviews with social workers, file reviews and so on.

What I thought would end up being a fairly discrete project is actually growing to be a fairly major project. We will, as I say, manage that within budget, but I just wanted to give you a glimpse. Sometimes when we look at an area, we’re not certain what we will find — for instance, sexual assaults on children. It was only till 2010 that the government reported fully to me on injuries to children.

You’ll recall that my office did a report on a girl with Down syndrome who was left with a deceased mother for a period of time. We looked at whether that was an injury or not — whether the child was injured by being left with a deceased mother. She had been quite severely neglected, that child.

The government changed the policy on reporting, at my urging, and I now get reports. So the reports around injuries have increased — in some instances, fivefold — but we began to get reports of sexual assaults. This is a good example of where those reports have led to a piece of work that is underway. I think it’ll be quite important to tell us: what are the experiences of adolescent girls who experience sexual violence in British Columbia, and can we learn anything from that?

A significant piece of work, and I’m very grateful, as I say, to have competent, qualified staff to do it. But that leads us into law enforcement. It leads us into hospitals. It leads us into: why are these girls living on the street frequently? Why are they being drawn into such a dangerous situation where their personal security is at risk? And are we adequately responding to their situations?

These are pressing and urgent issues, but they require a deep and careful look. When I do release a report, that report has to be accurate. It goes through a rigorous administrative fairness process, and my recommendations need to be practical and to reflect the needs of children and youth. That process — I just lay that out as an example of one area that this budget will support. It’s that area.

A final point I will make before I turn it for questions is that in terms of other areas that I’ve sought to look at, I did ask the government last year that I be designated to be able to look at liquor regulation and, in particular, at the enforcement of liquor regulation in British Columbia in terms of access by minors to alcohol. The largest area of infraction with respect to liquor regulation breaches is minors getting access to alcohol in British Columbia.

It was a concern to me — the issues that have come forward around party buses, for instance, but also the concerns around changes in liquor regulation in British Columbia. For instance, children can now attend bars with their parents, provided they’re food establishments. There’s also the broader expansion of sales of alcohol and how we will be addressing the issue of minors.

I did ask last year for the government to designate some of those services as within the representative’s purview so I could look at whether we have effective enforcement and how we are dealing with minors.

As we know from the reports of the provincial health officer, a major concern in British Columbia is problematic drinking — exposure to problematic drinking by
[ Page 1348 ]
minors. The government has not replied. I’ve met with them several times. They haven’t given me a final answer on that issue. I may still do something in that regard, but that is an area where, if they did reply, I anticipate I may do a project in that area to look at the adequacy of enforcement as the liquor regulation is changed.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for the concise presentation. I note that you have a stand-pat budget. You have a slight increase in FTEs of, I believe, 1.1. I’m just wondering how you are managing within the budget.

I’ve sort of searched through the plans, and I can’t really see if you’re taking out of professional services or travel or anywhere else that is enabling you to do this. Then the corollary is…. Because you did say that you would need two if other increases were granted. Should I assume from that that where you are prepared to manage within the budget, you certainly could use the money that you’re intending to manage down for enhancing service in particular areas.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Right. The adjustments that we’ve made, anticipating this submission, are looking at a reduction in professional services — absolutely — a reduction in office and business expenses and some things around, for instance, printing services for reports, trying to look at other ways that we can economize in that area, around supplies, travel as well.

Now, the travel is a double-edged sword. We do have a major investigation that will be in the north which will involve my…. I don’t want to identify the communities, but there will be several northern communities where the investigative staff has been and will be attending. So travel is difficult, but we are trying to manage the travel as best as we can.

We’re trying to find those opportunities wherever we can to still do it. But absolutely, there’s a challenge to manage within a stand-pat budget. But I just feel so strongly that it is the prudent thing to do, so I’m proposing that we will make the attempt. If we find we have a problem, we will come back.

Frequently, government asks us to do things. They’ll say: “We’ll give you extra money to do them.” Well, I don’t take money from government. We’re an independent office. We get it through the proper process to do the reviews.

If there’s a problem, we will come forward — whatever. But I’d like to think, based on the sound advice of Dianne, that we will be able to manage within this budget.

E. Foster: Thank you very much for your report, and thank you for a status quo budget. It makes her job a whole lot easier.

If you recall last year when you presented, you and I had a conversation about the amounts of money that were being spent and questioning whether that money was getting to the kids. You identified that. Now you just talked about the extensive program and report. What kind of conclusions did you come up with on that? Why isn’t the money getting to where we need it to be?

M. Turpel-Lafond: The report looking at aboriginal services was a pretty strong report. I mean, $66 million was spent on just trying to think up a new system without a single child receiving a service. That was unfortunate when we were dealing with some of the most vulnerable children — aboriginal children who can’t get speech pathology, can’t get services, whose issues aren’t being investigated — and when we’re dealing with agencies where government is sending money, and they’re not offering a service.

I was very concerned in that report about the fact that, in part, government had taken an attitude, which is: “We’ll just give you money. Go away and deal with your own problems.” My recommendations were that this has to be brought back in to talk about: how do you have really good partnerships? How do you work together to make sure there are high-quality services on the ground? How do you, of course, respect the autonomy that people want to have but be very direct with people?

For instance, I recommended that the Attorney General of British Columbia have a clear policy about how aboriginal jurisdiction over self-government will be exercised. Many people felt that they were just granted the right to have their own system, and the government would pay for it. It was going to just happen. Of course, great misunderstandings were occurring on the ground, including a lot of money not going to services.

I’ve certainly made some very strong recommendations. I believe the government has taken them. They’ve been a bit slow to respond to some of them. It speaks to a very important issue, which is money can be spent without services actually being provided. One of the reasons why we have the intense oversight we have on the Ministry of Children and Families is so they don’t have an approach which says: “We don’t know what to do here, so we’ll just give someone else the money to figure it out.” No, you’ve got to figure it out. You’re accountable. You’re responsible.

We need to make sure we know the outcomes at the level of a child. If we’re going to run a special needs program for children, there have got to be actual children receiving those special needs supports. We need to know who they are and that they’re being consistently operated throughout the province. That oversight is crucial.

That report certainly spoke to an attitude that may suggest great services exist, but without a good audit, without good accountability, we will not see what happens on the ground. They’re in a tune-up phase now, and I’m
[ Page 1349 ]
certainly watching them very carefully on that to see how they’re doing in terms of getting those services rolled out.

G. Holman: Thanks for the presentation and for the work that you do. I had initially thought that your stand-pat budget made our job easier as well — and it does for you — but it still, I think, begs the question for the other independent offices, who are saying they can’t deal with those budget increases and still maintain the level of service.

It’s still going to be a difficult question for this committee. Perhaps you can absorb those costs that were imposed on you. It’s going to be difficult for us to understand, though, whether, in fact, in reality, the other independent offices can do that. That’s just a comment, if you wanted to respond to that.

Several of the offices share some services in terms of the overhead administration. The question I had, too, was whether you had looked at that at all — perhaps you’re doing some of that now — and whether you think there is opportunity there in the future for sharing overhead administrative functions between the various offices and saving some dollars that way. Just your comment on that.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Well, on the first comment, every budget is different. Every officer has their own independence. Certainly, I’m in no position to assess or offer comment on others. I just know what’s appropriate for us and what’s appropriate for the sector I work in. What’s appropriate for the sector that I look at and work on is a stand-pat budget. So I will live with it. I will work within it. I will do my best to manage it, and I will explain where there are limits.

With respect to shared services, we have had some shared services with respect to payroll and a few other areas in the past. We are not sort of all sharing one building or facility with them, so in some ways it doesn’t entirely make sense.

We also are a little bit similar but different in the sense that we, too, are dealing with deeply confidential information. Privacy and confidentiality issues are significant. We have to be extremely careful about how we manage that, because we’re also dealing with information about citizens, and we have to have a certain wall and integrity there. But we do collaborate and share as much as we can.

We are sharing government services, like the WTS and others. We are integrated into the PSA, if you like. But it’s really difficult from a management perspective to see how we could be functionally more shared. It really doesn’t quite make sense for our office.

S. Gibson: I’m just noticing on page 17 — this is a little bit of old information — in the middle there, under the statistics, “Reports and reviews,” it’s got critical injuries, 300; deaths, 100 — even 400. I’m sure it’s accurate, but it seems incredibly coincidental that they are exactly even figures. They look like they’re rounded. Everything else on the page is not rounded.

Just an observation more than anything else. It seems like an incredible coincidence that they’re even. They’re probably rounded, I guess.

A quick question. Recently there’s a lot of discussion in the media and some tragedies about young people that are using technology where they’re communicating images to what they think are friends, and it turns out they go viral. Then everybody is not only embarrassed, but sometimes the circumstances end up being tragic. It’s my understanding, from what I’m hearing from some university colleagues, that it’s epidemic in the U.S.

It’s just a whole breakdown of appropriate levels of intimacy and that kind of thing. Young people — young women in particular — are being compromised by abusive young boys. Do you have any interest in that in your work?

M. Turpel-Lafond: Yes. I’ve been engaged in a project with the Information and Privacy Commissioner on the issue of cyberbullying. We’ve been working. I’m hoping that will lead to some type of a public report. We’re going back and forth. Of course, when we work with two offices and two cultures and environments, there are sometimes different perspectives, but we’re working very well on it.

With respect to those issues, though, we do work on them, around: what is the policy in British Columbia to promote a good knowledge and understanding for children — for instance, in the school system — around how to protect their privacy?

We do not have a clear policy in British Columbia around that. We have an ERASE Bullying policy, but we really haven’t landed on that. That’s an area where I certainly engage with the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The other side of it, and I think you’ve really put your finger on it, is the incredible emotional harm that results from someone oversharing, whether it would be a picture of themselves or a personal bit of information with someone who may be known to them, or may not be known to them — the fact that that’s shared widely, and the fact that that, in turn, can cause them huge stigma and trauma.

One of the things we do see consistently, and we have seen in the context of some of our investigations…. We did an investigation into a 14-year-old aboriginal girl who committed suicide. That report came out this year. In the lead-up to her suicide, there was a lot of social media around people saying hateful and mean things to her, but also her trying to reach out to people for emo-
[ Page 1350 ]
tional support. She’d been sexually abused and had experienced huge abuse.

Instead of getting real services, like a child welfare system that came out and protected her, she was turning to social media, oversharing, and that is not a good place for young people to receive proper support. They do get peer support. It could be very negative peer support; it could be anonymous, hostile support. It is not a substitute for good services around mental health. It’s not good services around trauma.

You’re absolutely right. We have a trend. If we do not get our serving agencies out there to help young people in their moment of need, they will go on line. Who they may connect up with on line may be someone who not only traumatizes them, but encourages them to do harmful things.

I’m extremely mindful of that. I am very concerned about that for girls and for boys. We have a historic prosecution underway in British Columbia of a girl that’s been charged with transmitting information that she received from someone’s phone. These are the first-ever criminal prosecutions.

The criminal system is a blunt instrument. Education, training, equipping families is good. I hope the Privacy Commissioner and I will be able to release a report to make some practical suggestions. I have followed the federal cyberbullying legislation, and I certainly do meet with parents and family members about this.

I’m quite understanding, but I see consistently…. It will be interesting, in the sexual assault cluster, whether or not those who experienced sexual violence received support from a hospital system, a victim services system, a police system, or whether most of their communicating was in social media. A very interesting question I look forward to finding the answer to.

Your point is well taken. I hope you’ll be able to see some more explicit work from my office on that subject.

S. Gibson: You mentioned earlier — and I picked up on the phrase — equipping families. As I read through your reports, it’s a tragedy here where there’s a direct correlation between the breakdown of the family and the corresponding issues — social issues, dysfunction, etc.

You don’t have to answer this question quite as personally as I’m going to ask it, but do you sometimes get frustrated in your work where you’re, essentially, picking up the pieces or dealing with folks that are coming out of tragic, dysfunctional families where you can diagnose the problem, but you’re trying to remedy a situation that has been created largely by parents who have just lost interest in their children? Their values have become so self-centred — mental issues, addictions, that kind of thing — that the kids, the young people, are the fallout for that tragedy.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Without a doubt, certainly my staff…. We work very closely with families and with children and youth. I think the primary focus for us is to try and really stay focused on children. Even parents…. Obviously many British Columbians are very sheltered in their life from having to work with children who are victims of physical, sexual violence or abuse, and there are many of them. People are probably well-sheltered for a reason, because it isn’t easy to do that kind of work.

People on the front line of our child-serving system who work on that, who are well-trained and supported, and need to be well-supported, do very good work. The interesting thing is just how resilient children are. But the need to have that system stay very focused on the best interests of a child…. Because you can frequently get lost. Maybe mom has a very serious addiction. The system can be very focused on mom’s addiction, and people should be focused on the addiction, but we can’t not be focused on the child.

Can the child live in that environment? Frequently when you’re dealing with parents who are dealing with massive issues, they will be the first ones to say: “I can’t raise this child. My life is completely out of control. But I hope if we put this child in foster care there will be good support, so if I can deal with my issues and get them back, they won’t be harmed.”

Working with families, standing with families, being non-judgmental and really having a spirit of understanding is really crucial. If you take that understanding, people tend to be able to focus on the child. But it does bring home the fact that there will be children in families — either because of accidents or serious mental health, addictions, dangerous individuals in the home — where children have to be removed. That is not an easy task, but it has to be done. It has to be done respectfully. But someone has to stand up for the child.

We can’t placate the adults that sometimes have deep issues and ignore the child’s needs.

M. Morris: You mentioned that you’re embarking on another project involving sexual assault on children and youth. My background, of course…. I’ve dealt a lot with that in some of the remote communities of B.C., and some very tragic consequences many times.

There hasn’t been a collaborative approach with the different agencies in the province, which I’m sure you’re already aware of and this project will probably highlight. Is there any thought to perhaps seeking some of these other agencies where we should be collaborating more — like the police, like Health — to maybe work with you on this project, to maybe find some different solutions as you go through what you’re doing?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think the issue for us is….
[ Page 1351 ]
Absolutely. There’s no question in my mind that the siloed approach really means that victims receive nothing.

Again, the report that we did this year on the 14-year-old girl that committed suicide, an aboriginal girl — very serious, tragic and preventable…. She had been sexually abused by a family member and then sexually abused by a boy who had forced sex on her in her school, in a church and in another location.

The matter was reported to the police by the teacher, but the way she was handled by the police was problematic. It was a junior officer early out of Depot who sort of interrogated her and basically had it go away, I guess. Maybe the police thought there were more important issues to handle in that community. There were a lot of drugs and guns and other things going on.

That little girl was very distraught. She said: “I keep telling people, but nobody does anything.” We have these campaigns in Canada now around sexual abuse, which are “I believe you” campaigns, which are very important for the rights of women — to say “I believe you.” The interesting thing in that investigation was it wasn’t about people believing her. It was that people did nothing about it.

The day she killed herself someone from their band office drove by, saw her sitting in her grandparents’ front yard on a fence and stopped and said: “What’s going on?” She said: “Well, I keep telling people, but nobody does anything.”

An older woman who was working there, a pretty together woman, said: “I was sexually abused too.” She said to the woman: “What did you do?” She said: “Well, I grew up, and I got counselling.”

She probably thought she was saying something good to a child, but you can’t tell a 14-year-old: “Just wait till you’re 35 and get counselling.” You need to actually be there, present in the moment, to act on sexual abuse.

It turns out that the perpetrator of the sexual abuse on her was the son of a fairly powerful person in that community. The child welfare system was afraid to go to the community and respond to complaints because they were threatened with violence, and they did face violence. So they just didn’t go, and the policing fell apart.

We lost a child. We need to learn from that. I’m not saying that the 160 cases I have will have that pattern. They’re from everywhere. A lot of them are from major urban centres, not just remote areas. But that whole issue of “I tell someone, but does anyone do anything…?” What do we do about it?

We’ll never do the right thing if we don’t collaborate. Police, child welfare, leaders, families, teachers — we all have to be together to believe people but also respond for safety. That sexual assault piece will maybe tell us something about where young people go. Have they normed a high level of sexual abuse and do not realize that it’s inappropriate? Do they understand what a safe relationship is?

Many challenges that we face around that issue. Our office is well into it. They’ve already come through the door — the cases.

It’s a question of engaging, certainly for myself, the Attorney General, the child welfare people and others in finding solutions if there are ways we can strengthen the system. So we’ll be looking. We want to support people to succeed. We want us to have a stronger safety system.

If there are recommendations…. Even though I don’t have a mandate with the federal government, I periodically do say: “Maybe you need to look at federal dimensions of this as well.” Certainly, we’re very knowledgable in British Columbia and Canada about issues around aboriginal women and girls. A large number of those who are in the sexual assault cluster are aboriginal girls.

I’m very interested to see what we find but very grateful that I have a committed staff with a range of expertise that can actually do that work file by file. So it isn’t, you know, my opinion. We actually look exhaustively, talk about it. And we do interview police. We do interview people across the system, and we try to change the dynamic if we can.

Thank you very much for your presentation. Just quickly, thank you very much for doing a move within your budget. John, thank you. The letter that we had, sent out at the start of the summer — greatly appreciated. Dianne, Mary Ellen and John, thank you again for the presentations today.

Mary Ellen, just one thing. I have a daughter that’s just got her learner’s licence and very quickly will probably get her N. I’ve always been a strong advocate…. You mentioned liquor and having a look at it, and you also mentioned education and training and cyber-bullying and cyber issues in your report, however it happens.

I take a look around the world today and see what happens with liquor and the culture attached to it in many of the European countries, where kids grow up with it. Now we’re faced with changes where liquor is becoming more open and more available in more family-oriented situations. At 16 you hand somebody the keys to a 4,000-pound bullet, and at 19 you give them the opportunity to go drinking.

Maybe there are opportunities to look at recommendations in the future that might make it more culturally appropriate at some point in time. We have to go through that learning curve, I guess.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Yes, and I appreciate the comments. I think the challenge is for problematic drinkers, the 20 percent of drinkers who are problematic drinkers — their children being exposed to problematic drinking early, attending in bars where there is problematic drinking.

My issue is really how the bar will respond when the
[ Page 1352 ]
parent is grotesquely intoxicated and there’s a child. Do they send the child home with the grotesquely intoxicated parent, or do they do something else? My interest in looking at liquor regulation is really on how we will deal with the fact that more children will be exposed to problematic drinking in British Columbia.

Thank you again. Have a good day. And to the staff in the back also: thank you for coming today.

D. Ashton (Chair): Could I get a motion to go in camera, please? Moved. Seconded.

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.

Chair:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Gary Holman (Saanich North and the Islands NDP)
	Mike Morris (Prince George–Mackenzie BC Liberal)
	Jane Jae Kyung Shin (Burnaby-Lougheed NDP)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES