W, n ,
doyle an opportunity to respond briey, but what went on between you and the auditor general's oce i don't really think is terribly helpful to the deliberations of this committee. obviously, you feel strongly about it, but this is the report that we have, and i really don't see a great deal of merit in getting into a debate and some nger- pointing about releasing the report or not.
clearly, the issue of games cost was something. i was on the committee in 2006 when we considered the re- port. at was canvassed fully. ere's clearly a strong dierence of opinion between the minister of finance and the auditor general on how to dene games costs. i don't think that's been resolved, and there's not going to be agreement on that. So i'm not sure that there's any merit in rehearsing all those arguments yet again.
 i appreciate you expressing your point of view. i'm not condemning you for expressing your point of view. my advice to the committee is that, aside from hearing a brief explanation from mr. doyle, if he chooses to make one, about his decision not to release the report, we not engage in a lengthy investigation of why this report was or was not released. i just don't see that it would be very helpful to what we're here to accomplish in this committee.
With that, i'll open it to questions. mr. doyle, did you want to make a comment?
J. Doyle: anytime government tells me how i am to report, i will give them the same answer — that i'm an independent ocer of the legislature, and i am entitled to report in any way i deem t.
i provided the government with a detailed report and then elected, because i wished to not create a frenzy of inappropriate discussion at the time, a simple one-page or two-page letter which identied that nothing much had changed. ere were a few variations around the edge, but the recommendation, which has been the recommendation all along from my predecessors and myself, was that there should be full disclosure.
now, full disclosure means full disclosure. You will notice that aerwards there was some additional disclo- sure regarding the $600 million.
as regard to the length of service of any particular member of sta and his observations regarding his own experiences, i think it's utterly and totally irrelevant to the exchange of information that should exist between an auditor and government.
i'll just repeat one more time that as an independ- ent ocer of the legislature, i am not bound to publish anything in any shape or form that's been agreed by gov- ernment. What i am bound to do is issue and bring to the attention of the legislature matters that should be brought to their attention.
By saying there needed to be full disclosure, i don't think there were any surprises in that at all, because that's been the stance that my two predecessors had set
up. Whilst there were some variations in some of the detail, that stance was continued into my mandate, and it's still my stance. When we nish going through all the documentation to see what has been made available to citizens in the next short period of time, if there are any gaps in that, then we'll address those gaps at some time early in the new year.
b. Ralston (Chair): okay, thank you. i'll turn to questions from members of the committee, and i hope committee members will accept my advice in terms of how we might shape our questions. We do have the other aspect of the report here, which is the arts council.
S. Chandra Herbert: i'm hoping we might be able to spend just a little bit of time on the arts council one
at least a little bit of time, because i'm always inter-
ested in what they're up to — before we get to the matter of the olympics report. i know there'll be a number of questions on that one. i can feel that.
i just wanted to acknowledge Jeremy long, the for- mer executive director of the B.c. arts council. i don't believe that he's been thanked in a forum like the legislature or a public accounts committee for his many years of public service. of course, Jeremy long has now moved on, but i just wanted to take a moment to thank him for his service.
it was interesting to read through this report when it was rst issued and then to look at it again. i thank the auditor general and his sta for acknowledging that it's a small amount of money relative to the much bigger government entity. indeed, we were talking yes- terday about $20 million, i believe it was, going into an infrastructure program. We had our debate about the 11 handwritten pages to justify spending $20 million. So when i look at the arts council and how it adjudicates its decisions, i have a lot more faith than in the decisions we were talking about yesterday.
my question — i guess it would go through to arts council sta, probably — would be just around the matter of the documentation for the adjudications of who gets the funds. i know the auditor general had acknowledged or mentioned that there'd been some de- bate or some concern raised about that documentation. certainly in my experience, non-prot organizations who do apply are always frustrated with the sheer amount of documentation they have to provide on their end, justifying what funding they might receive or what investment they might receive.
i'm just curious if i can get a broader understanding of what that was about.
S. Durno: You're asking about what kind of docu- mentation we keep from the peer adjudication process? is that correct?