Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 64 — Wednesday, July 8, 2015 (HTML)

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

2. The Committee considered correspondence dated July 3, 2015 from the Honourable Terry Lake, MLA, Minister of Health regarding a request to refer matters relating to the 2012 Ministry of Health employee terminations to the Ombudsperson for investigation pursuant to section 10 (3) of the Ombudsperson Act.

3. It was moved by George Heyman, MLA that the Committee congratulate Mr. Chalke on his appointment as BC Ombudsperson, thank him for his considered letter of July 7, 2015 in response to the Hon. Terry Lake, and request that he attend the next meeting of the Committee to discuss the concerns outlined in his letter of July 7, 2015.

4. It was moved by Dan Ashton, MLA, that the motion be amended by adding the following words: In addition, the Committee requests that a representative from the Ministry of the Attorney General be invited to appear before the Committee to address additional questions and further that the Committee request representation from the Minister of Finance regarding supplementary funding for the Office of the Ombudsperson, should a formal referral for investigation be made under section 10(3) of the Ombudsperson Act.

That the Committee congratulate Mr. Chalke on his appointment as BC Ombudsperson, thank him for his considered letter of July 7, 2015 in response to the Hon. Terry Lake, and request that he attend the next meeting of the Committee to discuss the concerns outlined in his letter of July 7, 2015. In addition, the Committee requests that a representative from the Ministry of the Attorney General be invited to appear before the Committee to address additional questions and further that the Committee request representation from the Minister of Finance regarding supplementary funding for the Office of the Ombudsperson, should a formal referral for investigation be made under section 10(3) of the Ombudsperson Act.

7. It was moved by George Heyman, MLA, that the Committee accept the recommendation contained in section IX (b) of Mr. Chalke’s July 7, 2015 letter and invite Ramsay Hamdi, Dave Scott, Linda Kayfish (in lieu of the late Roderick MacIssac), Malcolm MacLure, Bob Hart, Rebecca Warburton, Bill Warburton, and Ron Mattson to make submissions in person or in writing to the Committee before the question of whether to make a referral to the Office of the Ombudsperson is decided.

8. Resolved, that debate on the motion be adjourned to the next Committee meeting. (Eric Foster, 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
Correspondence from Minister of Health	1433

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Scott Hamilton. I’m the Chair of this committee. We’d like to take the opportunity to just go around, first of all, and introduce ourselves, starting with Simon.

D. Ashton: Good morning, gallery. My name is Dan Ashton. I’m the MLA for Penticton.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Along with the committee members, we have Ron Wall, our manager of committee research services, and Kate Ryan-Lloyd, our Clerk for the committee. Welcome, everyone. As….

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thanks for joining us. Yeah, that’s just fine. We were just finishing our introductions, Gary.

S. Hamilton (Chair): As you know, we are here primarily to kick off the meeting by reviewing correspondence from the Hon. Terry Lake, Minister of Health, as well as some subsequent correspondence that you’ll find on the table from both the Deputy Chair, Carole James, as well as Jay Chalke, the Ombudsperson, and, finally, the Attorney General’s office — if we can move forward with that.

I have very few comments. I’d like to, just first of all, thank the Deputy Chair for all of the time we’ve spent back and forth trying to put this meeting together, and you being able to call in to the meeting as well. I know it’s a bit inconvenient for everyone — especially maybe for MLA Gibson here, who just got back from Egypt a very few short hours ago. But nevertheless, we all understand the importance of being here today. With that, I will turn comments over to the Deputy Chair.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I did. Thank you, Scott, and I appreciate the fact that we did get a chance to have a conversation.

As people will see, on the correspondence I was concerned that we make sure that this matter starts off on the right foot. It’s obviously a very serious issue. That’s been emphasized by both Mr. Chalke as well as Minister Lake, and I know that everyone around the committee will also want to make sure that this is handled in the appropriate way and that we give it the time and the effort that it needs, hence my concern around the committee meeting with a couple of days’ notice and the opportunity for people to engage.

In my discussions with Scott, he and I certainly agreed on the fact that this would take some time, that this wouldn’t be the only meeting we would be having, that we would make sure we gave it a thorough discussion and that that would involve a number of different people appearing in front of the committee and having discussions. I really appreciate the opportunity, as I said, to have a chance to talk with Scott.

I think, particularly, the correspondence…. I know that members are just reviewing it. The correspondence from Mr. Chalke I think, in particular, makes it import-
[ Page 1434 ]
ant that we start off discussion with Mr. Chalke. I’ll leave it to the Chair. But if it would be helpful, Chair, we have a motion — I have a motion — that I would like to put on the floor that just starts that off with a discussion around Mr. Chalke appearing at the committee to get us going. George has a copy of that for folks.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Now, I was actually — if I could wade in — hoping that this meeting will sort of frame all of that going forward and that we could potentially work together to craft something that, when it does hit the floor, I would hope would be substantially complete. Regardless, though, we can put motions forward. That’s entirely the prerogative of this committee. But going forward, we’re going to have subsequent meetings in the very near future, starting probably next week, that will continue this process, because it’s obviously not going to turn on a dime.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Good morning, Members. The Chair has asked me to, essentially, provide a brief overview of the documentation that we have received in our office and which has been circulated in support of your discussion this morning.

As members know, the committee Chair received a letter on July 3 from Minister Terry Lake requesting that the committee meet to consider the issue before you today. Subsequent to that, we did circulate that in conjunction with the meeting notice last Friday to all members of the committee.

In addition to the meeting agenda, a copy of the Minister’s letter and a copy of the Ombudsperson Act, yesterday the Chair and the Deputy Chair received an extensive letter from the Ombudsperson, Mr. Chalke, who had noted in his letter that his purpose was not to advocate for or against referral of the matter to his office but to ensure that if a referral to the office was made, such referral was made on a realistic understanding of what the Ombudsperson investigation would entail, a proper assessment of legislative and practical measures that would be necessary to ensure that his office can fulfil the task.

It’s a comprehensive letter that has been sent to members for your consideration and review this morning.

Shortly thereafter, we did also circulate two other letters to members: for your information, a letter from the Deputy Chair, Carole James, outlining a number of proposals and suggestions for your consideration, as well as a letter from the Attorney General, the Hon. Suzanne Anton, which responds with respect to many of the legal points that had been raised in the correspondence from the Ombudsperson.

At this point, that is the extent of the information that has been provided to you. We’re happy to assist in any way forward today. We certainly will be keeping track of any requests for additional information that you might require in the course of your work — as well, happy to assist the members with any procedural advice.

G. Heyman: First of all, I note that the referral from the minister, Minister Lake, indicates and recognizes the “ongoing public interest and concern with respect to the decision to terminate a number of employees in the Ministry of Health.” He goes on to say: “In my opinion, a further review of this matter is appropriate” — before he indicated that, in his view, the Ombudsperson Act, and the Ombudsperson, was the best vehicle.

It’s been a couple of years now since the events. There’s been ongoing public interest and scrutiny of the events, and I think, in the interests of members of the opposition on this committee, we want to ensure that, now that there’s a proposal for an inquiry, it go forward in an appropriate manner with due consideration and thought.

Therefore, I read the response of the Ombudsperson to the referral addressed to yourself and the Deputy Chair with significant interest. He raises a number of very important points that, in his view, need to take place in order to ensure that an inquiry led by him has both public confidence and confidence of the individuals most impacted by the events of the terminations: i.e., those people who were terminated themselves and in the case of Linda Kayfish, the sister of Roderick MacIsaac, her ongoing family interest.

Also aware, Chair, that we’re here next week sitting. There’s an opportunity for the committee to meet and to work through some of the issues. In order to do that in an effective manner but also a timely manner, the Deputy Chair indicated that we have a motion. I’d like to read the motion. I think she may move it; I will second it.

The motion reads: “Be it resolved that the committee congratulate Mr. Chalke on his appointment as B.C. Ombudsperson, thank him for his considered letter of July 7, 2015, in response to the Hon. Terry Lake and request that he attend the next meeting of the committee to discuss the concerns outlined in his letter of July 7, 2015.”

S. Hamilton (Chair): Certainly. Just as a matter of process, a seconder would not be required. All we’d need for you to do is sign that motion, George.

My comments to the motion are simple. I think nobody on this committee, and, I would assume, nobody in government would want an inquiry to go forward that did not have the confidence of the public, did not answer the questions of significant public interest that have been arising over the past months and, certainly, not one that did not have the confidence of the people most directly impacted: the researchers who were terminated.

Rather than put off any decision about who to call to a future meeting, we have an opportunity today to at least bring in people that we think we need to discuss this issue with in order to determine if, as the Ombudsperson himself has said, we all have confidence in the process. He’s indicated he thinks that without unanimity on this committee, it’s not a process that will be non-partisan in nature and therefore engender public trust.

In speaking to the motion…. And I appreciate the Chair’s comments on the importance of us making sure that we’re doing this work together. I think that was the intent of wording this motion. It’s very straightforward. It appreciates Mr. Chalke’s direction to us as a committee — or suggestions or information — and provides an opportunity for us to start off, as I said earlier, on the right foot by getting Mr. Chalke to appear and to be able to ask all of those questions that I think are out there for everyone in the public.

None of this is an attempt to try and stall off this investigation. In fact, we believe it needs to go ahead and we need to make sure that a thorough investigation is being done. But I think Mr. Chalke raises some very important questions about whether this is the appropriate venue or not, whether the referral is the appropriate venue or not. And really, the only way to get those answered is to make sure that we have Mr. Chalke appear.

I think all of us, all members on the committee, want to make sure that we take this seriously. I certainly don’t remember, in any history that I’ve been able to look at, that we’ve seen a minister ask a committee to refer something to an independent officer. I’m sure it’s happened, but I think it’s not something that is common practice.

I think that makes it even more important for all of us on the committee to make sure that we’re doing our due diligence and taking seriously our responsibility here to be accountable. If we refer something, I believe we as a committee then are accountable for the process. We’re accountable for the investigation going forward and accountable to the people who want this investigation completed in a transparent and open way.

I support the motion, and there’s no intent to put something forward that isn’t going to be part of our discussion. The intent is to put this forward to get our discussion going. If there are changes to keep the intent here that would be easier for all members to support, we’d certainly support that as well.

D. Ashton: I would concur with the previous two speakers. This committee has worked very well in the past. George has touched on unanimity, and we have shown that on numerous occasions. With that in mind, I would point to the fact that Mr. Chalke was put into the position through unanimity. We’ve all stood behind this gentleman, and I, too, look forward to seeing him.

I know some of his questions that he has put forward seem to have been answered by Minister Anton. I think the opportunity exists that if he does attend earlier on, we can get this off on a strong foot with the openness that has been asked for not only by us around this table but by the public. I think that’ll be very important to have happen.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Any other speakers? Seeing none at the moment, I, too, would like to refer to the more recent correspondence from the Attorney General. She has, I think, taken great strides in researching this in a very short period of time to provide us a fairly fulsome response to many of the questions that were raised by Mr. Chalke.

However, those responses are in writing. If Mr. Chalke has other reasons why we should have concerns, he could express them, of course, to this committee. I would have assumed that Mr. Chalke would appear before this committee at some point not only just for budgetary purposes — because there’s obviously going to be an appropriation attached to this at some level — but also to ask questions relevant to his inquiry.

Having said that — I don’t know if there are any other concerns that want to be expressed from the floor — does anyone want to speak to the motion that in fact we do have on the floor at the moment?

M. Morris: I agree with everything that’s been said so far. I think a lot of it, though…. Perhaps we should be looking more at formulating the terms of reference so that we know what kinds of questions we should be directing to Mr. Chalke. I think time needs to be put into framing terms of reference for this particular inquiry so that we can direct our questions around that.

In fact, the Deputy Chair and I have had the opportunity to speak about that, as well as the House Leader. We have concluded, and we do agree, that we do not want to limit the terms of reference. We don’t want to try to squeeze this too tightly. This is going to be a very open and accessible process.
[ Page 1436 ]

We have, obviously, expressed concerns, and so has the media and the public at large, that full disclosure is of the utmost importance. To limit anything to do with the terms of reference I think would be inappropriate.

In fact — Carole, tell me if I’m speaking out of turn here — what we had agreed to do was go forward and try to craft something to hit this table that I think both sides would find substantially complete by the time it got to the floor and that we could agree with going forward. There’s still a lot of work to do, obviously, not the least of which is what you mentioned, Mike.

Having said that, by all means, I think it’s going to take quite a bit of discussion, a considerable amount of time, to make sure that we put it together the right way so that when it does go forward, if it does go forward, to the Ombudsperson, it be in the appropriate manner and it be properly framed.

E. Foster: It seems to be the consensus around the table that Mr. Chalke will appear to have a discussion with us. I guess where we are right now is: when? Will it be the next meeting, or will we do terms of reference first? Am I getting that conversation correct?

To me…. Could I maybe advance a notion? If Mr. Chalke were to appear before the committee and we were to have a discussion at some level with regard to some of the concerns that he had expressed in his letter to this committee and that, subsequently, the Attorney General’s office has responded to, can I suggest that there be some representation at this committee from the Attorney General’s office as well? Would that be appropriate, Madam Clerk?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): The committee could certainly request assistance or an appearance by a representative of the Ministry of Attorney General if it’s found to be helpful to the members.

E. Foster: I think in the interest of moving this forward, that’s a good idea. If we don’t do that, then…. Doing that, we have the opportunity to address the questions all at one time as opposed to running back and forth, so I think it’s a good idea.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just a couple of thoughts. I agree with looking at questions to deal with the terms of reference, but I think we have to make sure that we do this — it’s kind of chicken or egg — in a way that works.

The first question is whether the Ombudsperson is the right route to go, before we develop any kind of terms of reference. Do they have the ability to take this on? I think that Mr. Chalke’s letter raises some questions around that. I think it’s reasonable for us to all put questions on the table or issues that we think we want to see raised in a future terms of reference. But I certainly think it’s important for us to hear from Mr. Chalke. We want to hear from the Attorney General as well.

I would suggest that we also want to hear from the Finance Minister around budget issues, because that’s another question that will come up around the Ombudsperson. I think that’s important, as well, for us to make sure that we do before we develop the terms of reference and move ahead — to make sure that that’s correct.

G. Holman: Just for the record, I support the motion. I quite honestly can’t see how we can move forward without having a discussion with Mr. Chalke and others that have been mentioned. I fully support the motion. It makes total sense to proceed in that way. I just would urge the committee to take its time and not rush into anything. I know everyone feels that way. In any case, I support the motion. I think it’s a logical first step.

J. Shin: Likewise for me, Scott. I’m very happy to hear that the general consensus is to make sure that we do this properly. I support the motion and, of course, am very happy to hear that agreement is reached on this.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Having said all that, obviously we understand the importance of everyone being fully engaged, fully subscribed to the process. If there are questions and concerns that are raised as we go through, framing this, then they have to be dealt with. They have to be answered, obviously.

J. Yap: I’m wondering. One of the questions is: would the Ombudsperson’s investigation and review be comparable to a full public inquiry? That is one of the questions. Would that discussion in our committee happen…? Certainly, we can have it with him present, but is that something that we would have a discussion as a committee, separately?

S. Hamilton (Chair): Well, just going forward, I think our initial discussions — and I’m going to ask Kate to jump in here if necessary — will be around process and how it fits with the legislation that he works under and whether or not it is a fit and whether or not it is appropriate.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Any questions that the members may feel relevant and helpful to
[ Page 1437 ]
your considerations — I would encourage you to provide those to our office so we can begin assembling a bit of a background document for any participants at a future committee meeting, whether it’s Mr. Chalke himself or a representative of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

I did note in the Attorney General’s letter to the Chair and the Deputy Chair, this morning, that there is a helpful table that compares the provisions of the Ombudsperson Act in some instances to that of the Public Inquiry Act. If committee members have additional questions that are not addressed within that correspondence, those would be helpful for me to compile on your behalf so that we can ensure, should the committee decide to have a meeting with other participants very soon, that they receive that information in advance and can address them proactively, to your benefit.

G. Heyman: I think the best we can do at this meeting is to identify the pieces that we need to put in place for the next one or two meetings of the committee in order to, as expeditiously as possible, make the decision we’ve been charged to make — which is whether this referral requested by the Minister of Health is in fact appropriate to meet the purposes for which it’s designed. In order to do that, I think we’re about to vote on a motion to invite the Ombudsperson to discuss with us the issues and concerns that he’s raised. Those will be important in setting terms of reference.

There are also a couple of other things that have been raised in the public arena as well as by the Ombudsperson. I have two additional motions I’d be prepared to put before the committee that would, in my view — and, I think, hopefully the view of the committee — assist us in being ready to get the information that we need and that the Ombudsperson thinks that we need in order to make the decision, and we could have a process in place to try to bring appropriate people or get appropriate information for our next meetings.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Could I add, though, with the lateness of the receipt of some of this information, would we, before we met with Mr. Chalke, require an opportunity to fully dissect what has been said? I know the Attorney General’s office has responded, and they’ve given their reasoning. As the Clerk aptly mentioned, there’s a very helpful table associated with the letter that came to us. So a lot of these questions have been responded to by that office.

But does the Clerk’s office need a little more time with this process before we need to bring Mr. Chalke back? Or should we be meeting and talking a little more about process before Mr. Chalke comes back to this committee?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Well, our office is happy to adapt to whatever timelines the committee requires to get the information that you need. Certainly any direction from members is always helpful, in terms of communication with potential witnesses and our ability to prepare information on your behalf.

We will certainly do our best to review the documentation that’s been received, but it really will be at the discretion of members whether or not it satisfies the needs that you have for the information that you require to move forward with any decisions on this matter. We’re happy to help in any way we can.

D. Ashton: Would Mr. Chalke have received this? He’s not on the headlines for this letter from Minister Anton. That correspondence needs to go both ways, I think, also. I think he should be aware of the comments of the Attorney General and her comparisons on the back. It might give him some additional information.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): To the best of my knowledge, we certainly haven’t conveyed the letter that we received around nine o’clock this morning to Mr. Chalke. I’m not sure if he has received a copy.

D. Ashton: But again, in the openness that we all want to see around this table, I think this is a document that the Ombudsman should have in his possession — and, hopefully, answer some of the questions he has proposed — so that he’s better prepared himself when he comes here.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you. Just on that matter, the Clerk and I had a discussion a little earlier today and in the interest of full disclosure, all of this documentation will be released publicly as well.

S. Gibson: The one point I would like to comment on is that what we’re striving for is transparency. As you’ll note from the Ombudsperson’s comments, the role of that office is less transparent than some other means that are available to us, as you’ll note from the documentation. As mentioned, there’s a lot of privacy involved.

That would be a good thing — further to your comments earlier, Scott — that we make sure that whatever means that we select here at this committee is in the best interests of transparency. So the matter of who will do this, I think, is something that we still need to discuss, and Mr. Chalke probably will elaborate on that. This seems to me to be one of the important aspects to this inquiry as we go forward. Those are my comments.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just to echo that, I think
[ Page 1438 ]
you mentioned whether we should have more discussion around process or whether we should have Mr. Chalke appear. I think it’s pretty critical that Mr. Chalke be the first start — and a representative from the Attorney General or the minister to appear as well. I think that really is our key decision to make as a committee, as has been said well by Simon: whether this is a process that is the right process for an open, transparent, full disclosure kind of investigation that needs to occur.

My suggestion would be that if we pass this motion, we get moving as a committee and that we actually request — perhaps Monday; we’re all at the Legislature on Monday — that we try and book a time on Monday where we can meet with Mr. Chalke and with representatives we need and anyone else, as I mentioned, the Finance Minister, to talk about budget and what impact that would have.

It was mentioned in Mr. Chalke’s letter as well. I think as soon as we can do that, the better.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Absolutely. I’ll refer to the Clerk’s office in terms of the timing that we need to get this rolling and, of course, what our legislative schedule is going to look like.

I do concur. I mean, in the interests of full disclosure, it’s important that we vet all of these issues as thoroughly as we possibly can. It’s important. We have to maintain a certain public confidence as this committee goes forward, so again, I’ll support anything that’ll get us to the same place together. Thank you very much.

G. Holman: Scott, I have a question. If we are all agreed that we want the Ombudsman, first priority, but also Attorney General and possibly even Finance to meet with us as soon as possible, should we broaden the amendment? That’s my question to everybody. Should we broaden the motion so that we’re formally requesting and agreeing, as a committee, we want all of those parties to meet with us as soon as possible? It’s a question I have, not a statement or a position.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’ll go to the mover of the motion, if you don’t mind, Gary.

G. Heyman: As I mentioned, I have a couple of other motions to make with respect to information that I believe the committee needs to have in order to make a decision — and the Ombudsperson has indicated we need to have. I don’t have a motion with respect to somebody from the Attorney General’s department or the Attorney General communicating. I’ll leave that in the hands of the Chair.

This would be a subsequent motion, or is this an amendment to the motion that’s been tabled?

D. Ashton: Again, and with all respect to Carole, I think we seem to have some agreement or are in agreement around this table that we need additional resources here from government — Attorney General’s office and possibly the Minister of Finance’s office. So why wouldn’t we include all that in the motion and have everybody here?

A lot of Mr. Chalke’s comments and decisions that I have seen here are going to be answered or not answered by what we’re getting from those other departments of government. Maybe a friendly amendment, included in that, is that we do invite a representative from the the Ministry of Finance and a representative from the Attorney General’s office to be here at the same time as Mr. Chalke is here.

E. Foster: Yeah, I don’t have an issue with that either, other than the fact that the Minister of Finance is not going to have anything to say, yea or nay, until he sees the budget. Just even a note from the minister that would entertain whatever the committee asked for…. Certainly, you can invite them, but I don’t see them having any real input until the…. You know, we develop the terms of reference and get everything done, and then the Ombudsman will have to go back and come forward with a budget.

Certainly, I support the idea of the amendment to have the Attorney General’s people here, because they would be relevant to the conversation.

G. Heyman: As the mover of the motion, I would accept the amendments. I would note, with respect to the Minister of Finance, the Ombudsperson has been clear that he doesn’t think he should undertake an inquiry that would hamper the regular work of the Ombudsperson. I think the Treasury Board has trusted the committee to scrutinize budget proposals carefully in the past. I think it will be incumbent on us to hear from the Ministry of Finance that they intend to recommend additional funding, on our recommendation, in order to carry out an inquiry.
[ Page 1439 ]

I think without that, we’re hampered in our ability to make a decision. I understand that they will have to consider the budget reasonable, as we would as well, but I think the Ombudsperson needs to hear that, and we need to hear that as well.

M. Morris: I’m just wondering. You know, I listen to the comments here. Would we be putting Finance or Mr. Chalke at…?

I don’t know whether or not he’d be prepared to comment on what his budget would look like doing this kind of an investigation without putting a lot more thought into it as to what resources he may need down the road. It might be premature for us to be talking about finance at that particular stage. There may be some reassurance from the ministry, perhaps, that they’re prepared to fund this kind of investigation, but we won’t have any idea what that amount would be at this early stage, and I’m sure Mr. Chalke won’t have any idea as well.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Yes, if I could add…. I do see the participation of the Ministry of Finance as, essentially, being sort of a functional process. It’s going to fall out of all of the discussions, and all the decisions are going to be made around this table. They’re expecting us…. Essentially, we’re going to have to appropriate funding for this. Them knowing that it’s coming…. I guess I have to agree that I don’t really see the value in them being here up front.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just to add that I think my intent to have the motion clean was not to exclude these. It was just to try and make sure that we got a few motions forward and a few decisions made. If we leave the finance in there…. I think everybody is in agreement that, really, what we want to know from the Finance Ministry is that they’re aware there could be an investigation and that may mean that a budget needs to be expanded — and that there’s support for that.

I think that’s really what we’re looking for, rather than the specific budget being approved. At this point, until we make a decision about where we’re referring it, we don’t actually know. We don’t have a budget developed. As long as everybody is okay with that, I think the motion is general.

S. Hamilton (Chair): They don’t need any functional participation in the process, but yes.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Perhaps with the help of the Chair and the Deputy Chair, we could convey in writing a question to Treasury Board, to the Ministry of Finance, just confirming what has been the long-standing practice of this committee to receive budgetary submissions from independent officers. If there is a new or supplementary mandate that is tasked to the office, the practice, as members know, is the officer will come, appear before the committee, the committee will consider that request and make a recommendation to Treasury Board.

In the 15 or so years that that process has been in place, I’m not aware of any instances where Treasury Board has not fully funded as per the committee’s recommendation, but if it’s helpful to request, on behalf of the committee, a letter from Treasury Board confirming our understanding of that long-standing practice, perhaps that would be sufficient at this point in your deliberations and perhaps also make better use of the committee’s time with those witnesses who may be here in person at your next meeting.

G. Holman: I apologize if I’m muddying the water here, but having heard the discussion, my concern about sending a letter to Finance, as somebody said earlier, is it’s kind of a second step. The first step is to determine whether the Ombudsperson’s office is the appropriate entity to do the investigation. It just seems to me a little bit premature to be sending a letter to the Ministry of Finance.

We may ultimately decide as a committee that the Ombudsperson isn’t the appropriate entity. So shouldn’t we take that step first, decide that as a committee first, before making a point around the need for incremental budget to do the work?

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you for that. I guess that was my original intent when I spoke. But nevertheless, I’ll listen to all the conversation.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the point that Gary’s making, but we’re in a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. I don’t think we can make a decision about an ombudsperson’s inquiry, nor can the Ombudsperson actually know how he feels about taking it on unless there’s some indication that there’s a recognition that additional budget money will be required. I don’t see the harm of ascertaining that.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you. Essentially, we’re putting Finance Ministry on notice. That’s what you’re saying.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Can we perhaps just have some clarification? The practice usually is to have an amendment considered and adopted first, and then the motion as amended could be voted upon. Perhaps Dan could clarify his amendment?

D. Ashton: My amendment is to add the additional resources here for the committee’s disposal regarding the Attorney General’s office and some form of representation from the Minister of Finance in conjunction with the Auditor General.

S. Hamilton (Chair): May I speak to that? I’m sorry. Did we agree for representation from the Ministry of Finance or just simply to put the Ministry of Finance on notice with respect to the deliberations that are taking place at this committee and subsequently, potentially, the appropriation that would be necessary at the other end?

G. Heyman: I actually understood that the amendment and what I believed I was supporting was that there would be representation from the Minister of Finance, not necessarily the minister himself but somebody representing the minister, just to give a clear indication that there’s a commitment.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Yeah, and the representation could be a letter from the Minister of Finance saying: “We recognize this. We’re going to agree to take it to Treasury Board. There will be an expansion of budgets if this investigation goes forward.”

I think “representation” covers it. It could be a written response from the Minister of Finance, or it could be appearing or somebody appearing.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you. What would precipitate that written response from the minister would be that joint letter from you and I to the minister’s office letting them know the undertakings of this committee. Is that correct?

G. Heyman: Just for clarification of the amendment. I believe Dan closed his amendment by referring to the Auditor General, and I’m sure he meant the Ombudsperson.

D. Ashton: I apologize if I said Auditor General. Ombudsperson, Attorney General and Minister of Finance are the three departments.

G. Heyman: Also noted in the Ombudsperson’s letter to yourself and the Deputy Chair was that the committee needs to be satisfied that there’ll be public confidence in the investigation and its outcome.

Then he went on to say in that suggestion that it was particularly important that the statement released by the former Ministry of Health employees stating their views of what the investigation should look like and why they were favouring a public inquiry needed to be taken into account before we made a decision about referral. He suggested strongly that the committee give those views the utmost consideration, including inviting the employees to make submissions to the committee.

With that suggestion by the Ombudsperson in mind, I would move: “Be it resolved that the committee accepts the recommendation contained in section IX (B) of Mr. Chalke’s July 7, 2015, letter and invites Ramsay Hamdi; Dave Scott; Linda Kayfish, in lieu of the late Roderick MacIsaac; Malcolm Maclure; Bob Hart; Rebecca Warburton; Bill Warburton; and Ron Mattson to make submissions in person or in writing to the committee before the question of whether to make a referral to the Office of the Ombudsperson is decided.”

S. Hamilton (Chair): It won’t require one, Carole. Thank you. Just a signed motion.

D. Ashton: I’m curious, and I would ask George: Are we not starting to get into the area where the Ombudsman should be asking this? We would give direction, and he would be seeking answers and seeking some form of resolution. I’m just curious about having those individuals come forward.

We had talked earlier about the chicken and the egg or the cart and the horse. Are we not starting to get into an investigation ourselves? I’m just curious about their comments. How would their comments delineate what this committee’s decision should be — whether or not we engage the Ombudsperson or go in a different direction?

C. James (Deputy Chair): I appreciate the comment from Dan. I understand the chicken-and-egg issue. But I think the question here in the motion is…. If you look at the letter from Mr. Chalke, he does suggest that we have the researchers present. I think it’s important, in this case in particular, that we get their questions, as well, around any concerns or any issues or any support they may have around the referral to the Office of the Ombudsperson.

I think, as the Ombudsperson points out, this issue has been fraught with politics, with not full disclosure, with concerns. It’s critical from the Ombudsperson’s perspective — and I certainly would believe from the committee’s perspective — that everyone see this as a process that works.

There may be questions that come forward from the researchers that would then again be questions to ask the Ombudsperson. This is a question that the researchers have raised around confidentiality, for example, and the Ombudsperson raises that as well. That would give us, then, the very specific questions to be able to discuss with the Ombudsperson and then be able to make our decision about referral.

D. Ashton: Carole, I want to thank you for bringing it up, the word you brought up. I was going to use it at the end. I think now is probably the appropriate time. I hope — and I really hope…. As we have shown, all of us that have been around this table for the last couple of years, we’ve left politics outside of this room. When we as a Finance Committee have sat down, we have encompassed what is best for the people of British Columbia.

Now we are charged with putting somebody in place to do an investigation. There have been a lot of families that have been fraught with what transpired in this. I hope — and I want it on the record — that politics stays out of this room. This is an inquiry. This is not political. Let’s get to the bottom of this. Let’s let whoever is best and charged with this get to the bottom of this and not have it fraught with political manoeuvring or politics being brought into the room. I’ll leave my comments at that.

M. Morris: With respect to this, I look in Mr. Chalke’s letter, the reference there. It says that the former employees express a preference for a public inquiry. They’ve already expressed their preference for a public inquiry. We’ll note that. I don’t think we necessarily need to have them appear before this committee to re-express their views that they want a public inquiry into this. But we will take that into consideration in our deliberations, from my perspective.

G. Heyman: You know, with respect to both Mike and Dan, I echo Carole’s words. I understand the concern about drawing the line between holding an inquiry and making a decision about how the inquiry should be conducted.

It is important that we recognize what we’re dealing with here. We’ve been asked to make a decision about how to conduct an inquiry into what the government has admitted was a mistaken action — an action for which they apologize and that significantly affected a number of lives, a number of people, on an ongoing basis, apology notwithstanding, and in which there is significant public interest.

In recognition of that, the Ombudsperson stated that the inquiry…. He has raised a number of concerns about himself conducting the inquiry that he believes need to be answered before we can make our decision. One of those is whether there is public confidence and, in particular, whether the concerns of the people most significantly impacted by the decision to terminate are heard.

Now, I’ve had an opportunity to talk to some of those people and have heard a number of their reservations and concerns about the process being put forward. It may be possible to address those. That will be something that we’ll determine in discussion with the Ombudsperson. But in order to have their confidence in whatever decision we ultimately make, I believe that we need to, whether it’s in writing or in person, at their discretion, as the motion says, actually hear the nature of what they believe needs to be available in an inquiry and accessible to themselves and the public.

That is the sole purpose behind the motion — to allow us to hear their voices either directly or in writing before we make the decision. Out of their voices may come questions that we wish to put to the Ombudsperson or the Attorney General before making a final decision. In my view, to make a decision in a room without access to the views of the people most impacted could potentially be disrespectful and certainly not in the spirit of rapprochement — an apology that was indicated by the government in previous statements and in agreeing that some form of inquiry is needed.

In order to do our job, I believe we need to hear from the people impacted. I don’t believe we need to hold the actual hearing in this room, but we need to hear their
[ Page 1442 ]
concerns and address them. Positively or negatively — that will be a choice of the committee. But we do need to hear them out.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I want to follow up on that. I appreciate Dan’s comments around the committee’s work, because I think we have worked well as a committee, and I certainly would expect that that would continue. I don’t think that’s going to change.

I don’t think this is bringing the researchers forward — to have the debate about whether there should be a public inquiry or not. I think we are being very specific as a committee to ask them about any issues, concerns, positive and negative, challenges that they see with this issue being referred to the Ombudsperson. I think that’s the specific direction that we need to take with the researchers. I think they may raise their opinion, but that’s their right to do. We know that already from the public discussion.

I think this is making sure that those issues and questions are put on the table. Then the Ombudsperson also has an opportunity to say, “This is an area I can address. I do believe I can address it” or “This is an area that I don’t believe I can address through my existing legislation,” as he has identified in his letter. “This may need to be changed because of confidentiality, etc.”

I think it’s more just asking for very specific questions. I think, as George has said, we can do that via conference call if we need to, but I think it’s important to make sure, one, the issue is there. This investigation is being done for the researchers. These are people who have been wronged. Government has admitted that, as George has said. We want to make sure that their voices are heard.

Two, I think to do our due diligence as a committee, we need to make sure that we’ve taken a look and listened to the people who are going to be impacted by this and who have been impacted by this before we make our decision about whether referral is the right direction or not.

M. Morris: I think the crux of this issue boils down to the fact that the Ombudsperson’s office holds a great deal of public confidence, just from the history and since the inception of the Ombudsperson’s office. So I think we have to rely on that. We do have a good process in place with the Ombudsperson and the investigations that they have conducted in the past.

I think what, perhaps, this committee needs is some kind of a flow chart — and the Attorney has started on that — to show the comparisons between a public inquiry and an Ombudsperson’s investigation, to show the pros and cons for each of the processes here. I think that will clarify and probably add to the level of confidence of the particular individuals that are involved here.

G. Heyman: In part I agree with the statement by Mike, but I think it actually indicates that this motion should pass.

The Ombudsperson has no choice but to conduct an inquiry if there’s a referral from this committee. But the Ombudsperson has made it very clear the conditions under which he thinks an inquiry could be successful and add public confidence. Among those, he says: “I would suggest that the committee give those views” — the views of the terminated employees — “the utmost consideration, including inviting the employees to make submissions to the committee before the question of whether to make a referral is decided.”

That’s the request of the Ombudsperson to our committee. That’s what the Ombudsperson considers at least one necessary component of having a successful inquiry that restores public confidence and has public confidence in the process. That’s the motivation behind the motion, and I stand behind the motion.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Now if I could wade in. I don’t know how many times today we’ve used the terminology “chicken-and-egg,” but we have passed a motion to invite the Ombudsperson here to have those discussions. Should we not be looking at advancing that conversation with him first before we decide?

You know, I’ve got a concern from a technical perspective and the potential legal ramifications of this as well. We’re asking the Ombudsperson to conduct what essentially is, in the absence of a public inquiry, everything but — in terms of his ability to gather evidence, subpoena witnesses, take testimony, etc. I would hate for this committee to put ourselves in such a position as to usurp that entire process, essentially, by advancing testimony from witnesses, which is really, the way I see it, the job of the Ombudsperson.

I can’t make that decision. I’m certainly not a lawyer. I can’t make that decision now, but I would just as soon, if it’s at all possible — and I’ll turn to the Clerk with regard to this — take that on notice and at least get some advice outside of this room as to what this committee is empowered, what this committee can and cannot do, going forward to ensure that we don’t jeopardize the integrity of this entire process.

E. Foster: In light of those comments, I would bring forward a tabling motion for this motion so we can get that information prior to making a decision.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you, Eric. I don’t know exactly how that looks, how we conduct that.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): If the intent is to adjourn debate on the motion, a motion could be made to that effect now. That would have the effect, if adopted by the committee, that the committee would presumably resume debate on that motion at the subsequent meeting of the committee.
[ Page 1443 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): If I could add that I don’t want to throw this out. Like, we’ve agreed, coming out of this room, that everything is on the table. I don’t want to throw this out. Personally, I think we need clarity before we take it forward. I have no objections, necessarily, as long as I have comfort, going forward with this type of suggestion.

G. Heyman: Could you be more specific about the areas in which you believe we need clarity?

E. Foster: With a tabling motion, do we not just discuss the motion the table? My understanding is that the only discussion there is the time of when it will be brought back to the table? I could be wrong.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Just for the information, I’m not sure if it helps to clarify. If that motion has actually been made to adjourn the motion, prior to confirming that detail — if it’s actually the intent of the committee to adjourn debate on Mr. Heyman’s motion — I would note that in terms of your correspondence, an invitation to be sent potentially to the individuals that have been identified in Mr. Heyman’s motion presumably would be helpful to provide some scope as to what the areas of discussion are intended to be at that meeting and to ensure that it relates to the question which is before this committee. It’s in essence, as we know, driven by the request from the Minister of Health, of whether or not the committee would examine the matter for referral to the Ombudsperson.

I would note that the Public Inquiry Act appears to be a mechanism which is available to cabinet, not to this committee, necessarily. So the scope of discussion, really, in the committee room is to whether or not the committee would determine to make referrals pursuant to section 10 of the Ombudsperson Act. That’s in essence the heart of the decision that’s before you, and in that light, should witnesses come before your committee and provide you with the benefit of their advice and insight into that question, that would be the parameters, ideally, of those discussions.

J. Shin: I just want to chime in quickly. I can’t better articulate the points that George and the Deputy Chair have already made, but I do want to put on the record that the committee has been asked to deliberate upon an investigative process. I believe it is mandatory — the opportunities for those directly involved in this investigation to have their say, at their discretion, of course. I just want to put that on the record.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Well, thank you. Let me reiterate: I have no intention of discarding this and ruling it out of order. I don’t want to go there at all. I just need some clarity and some comfort, going forward, that it is within our mandate, our framework, within the legislation that we work under that we can actually do this sort of thing without jeopardizing the whole thing. We’re meeting next week, and we’re going to continue these discussions.

G. Heyman: The Deputy Clerk is quite right. We don’t get to decide if there’s a public inquiry. We do get to decide whether we refer to the Ombudsperson for an inquiry.

I appreciate the Chair’s wanting to ensure that we’re on firm legal ground in inviting witnesses, but let me simply reiterate that the suggestion is one of the Ombudsperson himself — who is familiar with the law, who is a lawyer — who is answering the question or making the suggestion in the context of our decision-making process around whether to refer the issue to him for an inquiry under the Ombudsperson Act.

His statement was that we hear from the affected employees, the employees who were terminated by the Ministry of Health, about their reasons why they think that a public inquiry is a better venue than a referral to the Ombudsperson and what they think needs to be part of an inquiry process that the Ombudsperson may or may not say is achievable, depending on other issues that he’s raised in his letter.

I’m not suggesting — and I don’t believe the Deputy Chair or anyone else is suggesting, in supporting this motion — that we open the door to hold our own inquiry, but simply that we hear directly from the terminated employees about their reasons for having concern about a referral to the Ombudsperson, which is precisely the subject of the discussion we’re about to have.

In that regard, I don’t see a tabling motion doing anything but adding time to the process. Ultimately, if we do trust the Ombudsperson and we want to take the public confidence in this inquiry into full consideration, we do need to hear from those people about those issues that they believe need to be addressed by an inquiry and determine whether those issues can be addressed by an Ombudsperson inquiry and, subsequent to that, whether we agree with them and think it’s important.

That’s a factor in our decision-making. Sooner or later, we have to hear from them. I think by passing the motion, we put ourselves in a position to invite them, to allow them to make arrangements, to allow them to consider whether to come in person or put their views in writing and to begin to put their thoughts together. If we put it off, we put off the process.

S. Gibson: I think George’s initiative is laudable, but I do agree with the Chair and others that we’re getting the
[ Page 1444 ]
process a little convoluted here. If you read the motion, the latter part, there’s a list there. I want to speak, with respect, George, to your motion “to make submissions in person or in writing.” If you put a period there, it might be more acceptable. This is just my thought. It says, “…to the committee,” blah, blah, blah.

Do we all agree around the room that these folks need to have some forum? Yes, we do. We agree with that. But the concern, I think, that’s being expressed by the Chair and others is that the process is getting a little ahead of us here in terms of what we can do legally, right?

If you put a period after “writing to the committee….” We don’t know that yet. That’s the problem. Before the question, we don’t know how that process is going to unfold. I think if we put a period after the word “writing,” it would be more acceptable, possibly.

I don’t know, Scott, whether you’d like to speak to that. Maybe Kate, you would like to…. If you put a period after “writing”…. The balance, I think, is the part that’s more controversial, in my view, and speaks to the point made by you, Scott, and some others around this side of the table, regarding the appropriateness and timeliness of this motion.

M. Morris: I think these folks would be in a better position to make a presentation to this committee once they hear what the Ombudsperson’s authorities and investigation will entail. I think they probably have some apprehension right now because they probably don’t understand the distinction between a public inquiry and the Ombudsperson’s investigation itself. I think once they hear the deliberations and the questions and the answers from the Ombudsperson and the Attorney General’s representative at our next meeting, they may be in a better position to make that determination.

According to Mr. Chalke’s submission here, they prefer a public inquiry. But maybe they don’t understand exactly what the Ombudsperson’s roles and responsibilities are.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I want to go back to Kate’s comments, because I think they really, for me, clarified how important this motion is and why it’s not chicken-or-egg.

I think, as Kate has identified for us — and as George emphasized as well — we’re talking about referral. That’s what we’re talking about right now. We’re not talking about terms of reference. We’re not talking about a debate about whether it’s a public inquiry or not a public inquiry. We’re talking about our responsibility as a committee to decide whether this issue appropriately should go to the Ombudsperson.

I think the Ombudsperson, as George has pointed out, raised the need to hear the voices of the individuals that are impacted by this investigation — the reason this investigation is going on — to hear about their issues they may have with referral — not with having a public inquiry, not with the investigation. We’re not talking about having an inquiry in front of our Finance Committee or talking about doing an investigation. We are simply asking the people impacted whether they have issues or concerns about us as a committee deciding to refer this to the Ombudsperson.

I think those are pretty important issues that need to be heard by all of us on the committee before we make a decision about referral. I think it’s critical that we hear their voices. Whether they put those questions in writing, whether they appear in front of the committee — I think we can work that out. I don’t think we need to make this a long process, but I think it’s pretty important, in any fair and reasonable process, to hear from the people who are going to be impacted what they think about sending something along.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I am not at all against what it is we’re trying to accomplish here. Again, I’m just going to re-emphasize it. There could be a legal ramification to this. I just don’t know. I see this as being the job of the Ombudsman, ultimately, to interview these people.

I’m not quite sure where to take this. But again, I’m not here to jam the subject. I’m not here to necessarily debate the merits, in terms of the information that would come forward from these folks. I’m just more concerned with the potential legal ramifications, and I’ll leave it at that.

E. Foster: I guess I used the wrong terminology. In my many years in local government it was called a tabling motion. Here, in this room, it should have been a motion to adjourn debate to a further time. That was what my intention was.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Just for the information of members, pursuant to our rules, if there is a motion to adjourn debate on a motion before a committee, that motion is not debatable and it would be put immediately. So the question has now been put by Mr.
[ Page 1445 ]
Foster to adjourn debate on the motion that Mr. Heyman moved, with respect to hearing further representations.

E. Foster: I think a timeline is required. I would move that to the next committee meeting.

S. Hamilton (Chair): On the next topic…. I’m going to go to George. You said you had another motion that you wanted to….

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m going to ask Madam Clerk to ensure that our agenda for the next meeting of this committee properly reflects the motion that MLA Heyman put on the floor at this meeting so that we can discuss it further and more fully and, in the meantime, take a look at any potential impacts that might occur as a result of that motion being passed, if any. If not, certainly, this committee is going to give it proper consideration.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just to add…. I’m guessing…. I know we mentioned it at the start, but I think it’s just worth emphasizing again that we’re all at the Legislature next week. I think if we can book meeting dates or get meeting dates as soon as we can…. I know everybody’s got House scheduled — but even into the evening, after the House adjourns, if that’s what’s needed to be able to get the committee back together again. While we’re all there, I think it makes sense that we try, as quickly as we can, to get Mr. Chalke in and have those presentations and move this along.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m staring right at MLA Foster here, in terms of House duty and the like, so I’m sure his capable staff will make it work.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Again, I want to reiterate my thanks going forward. Dan said it, and Carole, you echoed it. This committee has worked exceptionally well together for the last two-plus years, and I look forward to going hand in hand together, as well, and seeing this to the proper conclusion. With your help, Carole, I’m quite certain we’re going to get there as well.

Again, I want to thank everyone for being here today. If there’s nothing further….

M. Morris: Just one more thing. I’m just wondering if there is a possibility of getting a more comprehensive flow chart showing the comparisons between both processes that might clarify things for not only this committee but others as well.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): We could certainly make that request of the individuals who will be invited to attend the meeting next week, once the date and time are known. If there are any particular details beyond a detailed comparative table or chart, I’d be so pleased to be able to receive those from you and invite the invited guests to address those for you.

To the best of our ability, we’ve been trying to compile some research. But because of the specifics, the actual context of this particular proposed inquiry and all the details, it’s quite a specialized area. I think that the individuals that you will have before you at your next meeting would probably be in the best position to address any questions on your mind.

Again, if you have any specific areas of information that you would like to receive, please let me know as soon as you can.

S. Gibson: I think that’s a good point Mike is making. Further to that would be some thoughts on recommended timelines. Anticipated timelines, I think, would also be useful to the committee, further to Mike’s comments.

G. Holman: On this concern about the committee muddying the waters in terms of a possible inquiry by
[ Page 1446 ]
having the employees come forward in whatever form, how is that concern going to be pursued? With you and the Deputy Chair?

And just to make…. My understanding of the intent of the motion, as both George and Carole have stated but just to reiterate, is not to get into the substance of the complaints by the employees but to restrict their input to the question of whether the Ombudsperson is the appropriate entity to carry forward in the inquiry. So our input from them is limited to that.

I guess my procedural question is: would you and Carole be pursuing that concern that you’ve raised about creating some potential legal problems?

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m looking forward to meeting with Carole first thing on Monday — Carole, if that works for you — as soon as possible…

S. Hamilton (Chair): …through the Clerk’s office and advancing that question. Once we get some clarity and wrap some answers around it, then it’s going to come right back in front of this committee without delay.

G. Holman: Okay. And just finally, I prefer not to hold hands during the process. It’s just my personal preference.

E. Foster: You don’t have to worry, Gary. I won’t be holding hands with you.

Well, once again, thank you very much for being here. I know it was an inconvenience for many people, and I do appreciate everybody putting in the time and the effort. We will conclude today with the view of getting together and having a more fulsome discussion next week once the Committee Clerk’s office can get us a little bit of information, some answers to the questions that have been raised. I’ll look forward to all meeting again.

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:	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission 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