2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament


SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Monday, November 7, 2011


5 p.m.


Room 420, Strategy Room


Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, Vancouver, B.C.


Present: Rob Howard, MLA (Chair); Doug Donaldson, MLA (Deputy Chair); Bill Bennett, MLA; Mable Elmore, MLA; Dave S. Hayer, MLA; Pat Pimm, MLA; Bruce Ralston, MLA; Dr. Moira Stilwell, MLA; Jane Thornthwaite, MLA.


Unavoidably Absent: Bill Routley, MLA


1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 5:03 p.m.


2. The Committee reviewed the correspondence received October 27, 2011 from Elizabeth Denham, Information and Privacy Commissioner.


3. The following witness appeared via conference call before the Committee and answered questions:


4. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to deliberate on the request for supplementary funding for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. (Dr. Moira Stilwell, MLA)


5. The Committee met in-camera from 5:26 to 5:43 p.m.


6. The Committee recessed from 5:43 to 5:51 p.m.


7. The Committee continued in-camera from 5:51 p.m. to 6:03 p.m. to consider the Committee’s report on the Budget 2012 Consultations.


8. The Committee recessed from 6:03 to 6:17 p.m.; from 7:29 to 7:30 p.m.; and from 8:07 to 8:18 p.m.


9. The Committee continued in public session at 8:18 p.m.


10. Resolved, that recommendations 1-12, 14-15, 18-35, 37-53, 55-58, 64, 66-67, 69-71, and 73-75 be adopted. (Doug Donaldson, MLA)


11. It was moved by Dave Hayer, MLA that recommendations 13, 16, 17, 36, 54, 59-63, 65, 68 and 72 be adopted. The motion was agreed to on the following division:


12. It was moved by Dr. Moira Stilwell, MLA that the Budget 2012 Consultation Report, as amended today, be adopted, and, further, that the Committee authorize the Chair and Deputy Chair to oversee any final minor edits to complete the supporting text by Thursday, November 10, 2011.


And debate arising on the motion being put, it was moved by Doug Donaldson, MLA in amendment thereto that the words Thursday, November 10, 2011 be replaced with the words Friday, November 11, 2011.


debate continuing on the motion as amended and the question being put it, it was carried on the following division:


13. Resolved, that the Chair deposit a copy of the Budget 2012 Consultation Report with the Office of the Clerk and that the Chair present the report to the House at the earliest opportunity. (Bill Bennett, MLA)


14. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 8:27 p.m.


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

select standing committee on

Finance and Government Services


Monday, November 7, 2011


Issue No. 62

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 1753 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011


The committee met at 5:03 p.m.

[R. Howard in the chair.]


R. Howard (Chair): Members, we'll get going. We'll call together the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for Monday, November 7, 2011.


The first item on the agenda is a request for supplementary funding for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We have on the phone with us Elizabeth Denham, who is the commissioner. 


Welcome, Elizabeth.


Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner


E. Denham: Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.


R. Howard (Chair): Thank you for joining us. We have received your letter. I know I have a few questions. As we progress through this, I will keep a speakers list and give members here a chance to put questions forward to you, Elizabeth. Do you have any overview you'd like to offer us to start?


E. Denham: Yes, I would like to take the opportunity to review for the members the reasons for my request — I have about six or seven minutes of an overview — and then open it up for questions.


R. Howard (Chair): The microphone's yours.


E. Denham: Okay. As you know from my October 27 letter, I'm seeking supplementary funding for fiscal 2011-12 from contingency to fund some startup work that I think is necessary to undertake a new mandate that's assigned to my office as a result of recent amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — Bill 3, 2011. This is very much a stopgap request for $115,000 so that my office can begin work immediately on some essential tasks.


[1705]

We don't have the existing resources to dedicate to these new and, I think, important paths, as our existing budget is, really, fully committed to our statutory mandate of investigating and adjudicating access and privacy complaints. However, I anticipate that even if the committee approves this supplemental funding request, my office will not exceed its current approved budget allocation of $4.906 million, and I'm going to explain that in a moment.


Just to quickly review the scope of the new mandate for my office, as a result of the Bill 3 amendments, we have four significant new duties and responsibilities assigned to our office. The first is reviewing and commenting on privacy impact assessments respecting multi-agency programs or data-linking initiatives.


The second is to provide expert advice on the development of an information-sharing code of practice. Third is to provide expert advice on the development of regulations relating to the collection of personal information based on consent and, fourthly, to provide expert advice on the development of regulations respecting how data sharing must be carried out.


My letter outlines four tasks that we need to undertake immediately. The first is the development of privacy impact assessment guidelines. The second is the development of the code of practice for information sharing. The third is advice regarding regulations.


The fourth, which actually isn't outlined — it's not a legislative mandate, but it is an immediate task not specified in Bill 3 — is the development of an expert advisory panel to review and oversee the provincial identity management services provider. The minister has agreed to my suggestion for the creation of this panel and has sought our assistance in developing the terms of reference and the membership of that panel.


The particulars of the amount of the request are broken down in two ways. The salary costs are $40,000, and we currently have an eligibility list of candidates from our last policy analyst competition. Certainly, from experience I know that I can't attract fully qualified candidates to just temporary assignments. So I'm seeking funding to immediately hire, on a full-time, permanent basis, one new policy analyst. The $40,000 is for the salary and benefit cost to March 31, 2012.


Secondly, $65,000 — that's broken down as $35,000 to prepare and publish guidance materials and $40,000 for other policy contract assistance with existing tasks to free up our staff to work on the regulations and guidelines that I went through earlier.


The total amount that I'm looking for is $115,000. I wanted to explain how I think I can use this contingency within my current budget. Some of you may remember that for the past two years $300,000 of the contract dollars in my budget have been dedicated to litigation or judicial review costs. So any amount within that $300,000 envelope that's not spent on judicial review–related legal costs is returned to the consolidated revenue fund at year-end. This money is, really, frozen funds and can only be spent on this specified purpose.


[1710]

Last year we returned $82,000 from our $300,000 envelope to the revenue fund, and we are currently projecting spending a total of $150,000, based on the cases that we have either scheduled for hearing or that are likely to be scheduled within this fiscal year. But we are currently forecasting that we will return $150,000 of this dedicated fund, and since we anticipate returning $150,000 and we are only asking for $115,000 in contingency funding, the
[ Page 1754 ]
net effect will be that my office will continue to operate within the maximum amount that was already allotted to it by your committee last year.


Just in summary, what we have before us are new and, I think, very important oversight responsibilities that will ensure that the public is protected. It's a whole new world here. It's really a new way of regulating privacy with mandatory reviews that will help the government design systems with privacy in mind upfront. There's pretty heavy responsibility on our office to conduct these reviews, rather than come in at the end of the day with an enforcement action, which is really the model that we have had up to this time.


I can't absorb the startup work that I've described to you in my current activity level. I can't really turn off the tap of the work in front of us, because I have the legislative mandate to accept complaints and adjudicate files. We are projecting a $150,000 surplus in our frozen litigation funds, and I'm asking that the litigation funds be unfrozen so that they can be reallocated to another priority. Just to emphasize that, I'm not asking for net new money.


I appreciate the chance to present to you, and I'm available to answer any questions that you might have.


R. Howard (Chair): Thank you, Elizabeth. We have some questions.


B. Bennett: Hi, Elizabeth. It's Bill Bennett here. Just a couple of questions. I guess you're operating on the assumption that your litigation/judicial-review budget won't be used. Or at least there'll be $115,000 that won't be used between now….


E. Denham: That's correct.


B. Bennett: And is that a safe assumption?


E. Denham: I think it is a safe assumption because we are projecting…. We basically know which hearings are scheduled for the next few months, and because we've had experience over the last few years of litigation costs, I think we're accurate in our projection that half of it, $150,000, will be unspent.


B. Bennett: Okay. Then my second and last question goes to, I guess, the urgency of a decision from this committee. Correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Clerk, but we're meeting with the statutory officer on November 17. I mean, is this for information purposes tonight, mostly? Or are you looking for a decision tonight? Can it wait till the 17th? What's the impact of waiting?


E. Denham: Well, it could wait for the 17th, but just to be clear, when I appear before you on the 17th I'll be asking for my budget for the next fiscal year. This request is to allow me some flexibility to do the initial startup work, which I'm describing as a stopgap. It certainly doesn't reflect what I will be asking for before your committee on the 17th.


B. Bennett: Okay, thank you very much.


J. Thornthwaite: I just wanted a clarification of your last statements that you made. You said that you're not asking for new money. Or did I mishear you?


[1715]

E. Denham: I'm not asking for money in addition to the amount that I was allocated last year. For this fiscal, I have $4.9 million in my budget, and I'm not asking the committee to grant me extra contingency funds for this immediate startup work. I'm asking that we can use what I'm describing as frozen funds in our litigation envelope for the startup work that I've described to you.


R. Howard (Chair): Elizabeth, was part of Bill 3 to introduce some efficiencies? How might those efficiencies be reflected in this request and future requests?


E. Denham: Well, I think Bill 3 was introduced to allow the government more flexibility in the way that they introduce new electronic systems and in the way that multi-agencies can deliver services — for example, to the homeless. So there's more information-sharing, more authority for the government to share information.


That doesn't introduce efficiencies in my office. What it introduces for my office is significant new responsibilities and a mandate to ensure that this information-sharing is conducted in a way that protects the privacy of British Columbians.


R. Howard (Chair): Okay. Elizabeth, do you have any contingency accounts in your current budget?


E. Denham: In terms of unexpended funds?


R. Howard (Chair): Yes.


E. Denham: Well, just in terms of litigation. As I said, this $300,000 in litigation funds was set aside because we had so many challenges in court, by the government, of our access-to-information orders. The $300,000 was granted to my office three years ago, but the condition was that we would have to return unexpended litigation funds.


I can just tell you that we have no other room to move. We are really tapped out. We've got very, very complex cases before us, including investigations into facial recognition software. We are looking at the new CareCard initiative. We are investigating the integrated case management. So, increasingly, our work is highly technical.

[ Page 1755 ]

I really don't have any room to move, so what I'm asking is that you unfreeze the $300,000 and allow me to use some of those funds for the salary and contract dollars that I described to you.


B. Ralston: I did participate in the debate on Bill 3 to some extent and also followed it. The minister seemed to be suggesting that one of the reasons that the bill should be supported was that the Privacy Commissioner was going to be involved.


I take it from what you're suggesting here…. Your expert advice on the development of regulations in a couple of cases…. The whole issue of data linking — she stressed very strongly that you would be involved. And that was, I think, some of the main assurance that she was providing the public about the implementation of this legislation.


Would it be fair to say that in your view these regulations couldn't be developed without the assistance of your office? It would seem, from the way the minister was answering the questions, that the legislative drafting section did not possess the requisite expertise to do this.


E. Denham: That is correct. The minister made the statement many times in the debate that government would be relying on the expertise of our office. It's also a legislative requirement that our office be consulted on the development of the regulations.


These kinds of regulations — the consent-based regulation, the regulation on data linking, the regulation on the information-sharing code of conduct — are new and progressive types of regulation in Canada. There's no other jurisdiction in Canada that has adopted this model of more liberal data sharing within government but balanced by some rules and mandatory privacy impact assessments by the commissioner, etc.


So I think that what the minister was saying was that British Columbians can be assured that someone has their back, because the commissioner will be deeply involved in the development of the rules and in the development of privacy impact assessment standards.


[1720]

This is the kind of work that our office needs to undertake, and yet we need some new resources to do that. This is my first ask just to do some of the startup work that needs to begin immediately.


D. Hayer: Thank you very much, Elizabeth. My question is about this $115,000 you are requesting, even though I understand that it will be coming from the $150,000 which you are going to return back to general revenues from the litigation fund of $300,000. Is it 100 percent of this $115,000 that will be used, or is it that maybe only some of it might be used between now or the end of the year?


E. Denham: It's a modest amount, and I expect that the full amount will be used, because we will be developing the privacy impact assessment guidance, where we need some contract expertise. Also, we will be hiring an additional FTE, a policy analyst, to help us with some of this work.


D. Hayer: So that expertise does not exist right now in your office up to now?


E. Denham: We actually have to do quite a bit of research because there are only two jurisdictions internationally that have the kinds of rules and the kind of model that B.C. has adopted under Bill 3. One is the U.K., and the other is New Zealand. So we need to do a lot of research. It's not that we don't have the expertise, but we're going to have to look outside and do this research. Hiring an additional policy analyst and bringing in some external consultation will help us with this.


R. Howard (Chair): Can I just ask…? We're talking a startup here. I guess, if I have a concern…. And I do appreciate that you've identified a kind of a source of funds for it. That's great. But I'm still trying to understand. By committing to this startup, it seems to me, we're also committing to the rest of the program, because we're not going to want to start it up and then suspend it. So I'm a little awkward without knowing what the rest of the program looks like.


E. Denham: Right. I understand that, but the development of the regulations and the development of the information-sharing code of practice and the guidance document for the mandatory privacy impact assessments has to be done according to the statute. So that work needs to be done no matter what.


The question that you're posing to me is: what else am I going to be asking for on an ongoing basis to actually…? Once these tools and once the rules are in place, how are we going to review and oversee the work that comes in for data-sharing and data-linking initiatives? That's your question?


R. Howard (Chair): That's correct.


E. Denham: I will have a fulsome response when I come to see you on November 17, but in my view, our ask for the ongoing maintenance of these new authorities the government has granted itself is modest. It's a few FTEs. It's not a grand program.


I really think, though, that the government is counting on the Privacy Commissioner to undertake a very proactive role, to make sure that the public is assured that somebody is watching, because there's a great deal of personal information and sensitive personal information that will be shared in the development of these various
[ Page 1756 ]
programs and new e-government and e-voting and the electronic health record, etc.


R. Howard (Chair): Okay. I appreciate that. You've obviously looked inward for some other areas where there might be some efficiencies that could help fund this?


E. Denham: Have I looked within my budget?


R. Howard (Chair): Yes.


E. Denham: Actually, I've looked in my budget, and unless I cut back entirely on staff training — which I'm loath to do — or cancel a contract that I have with an outside investigator, I really can't find it. We do have a very small budget, and we have three statutes to oversee. We only have 26 staff in our office at this point.


[1725]

R. Howard (Chair): Okay. I thank you for that. I don't see any other questions, so I think we'll leave you with thanks, and we can deliberate.


E. Denham: Thank you very much.


R. Howard (Chair): Appreciate that. Thank you.


Could I have a motion that we go in camera to deliberate?


M. Stilwell: I so move.


R. Howard (Chair): Moved, and seconded by MLA Donaldson.


The committee continued in camera from 5:26 p.m. to 8:18 p.m.

[R. Howard in the chair.]


Committee Report to the House


R. Howard (Chair): We're back on the record. Members, what we will do is, firstly, move the consensus items. So what we are doing…. We have, I think, 75 recommendations in total. Thirteen are non-consensus, so 62 are consensus. On the consensus items, could I have a mover by block?


D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Yes, Chair. I'll move that the recommendations that were reached by consensus be adopted. Those are recommendations 1 to 12, 14 to 15, 18 to 35, 37 to 53, 55 to 58, 64, 66 to 67, 69 to 71 and 73 to 75.


R. Howard (Chair): We have a motion on the floor.


Motion approved.


R. Howard (Chair): Now we have 13 non-consensus items.


D. Hayer: I will move the recommendation numbers under non-consensus: 13, 16, 17, 36, 54, 59 to 63, 65, 68 and 72.


[2020]

R. Howard (Chair): We've a motion.


Motion approved on the following division:


D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Are you ready for some concluding comments?


R. Howard (Chair): I'm just asking Madam Clerk. We've got recommendations, do we?


S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): The next thing would be a motion to adopt the report.


M. Stilwell: I move that the Budget 2012 consultation report, as amended today, be adopted and, further, that the committee authorize the Chair and Deputy Chair to oversee any final minor edits to complete the supporting text by Thursday, November 10, 2011.


R. Howard (Chair): We have a motion on the floor.


D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): I have a couple of items. First of all, around the motion, perhaps we would increase that time to at least Sunday, the 13th of November, which would give us a bit more time if we need to go back and forth over the weekend on our deliberations as Chair and Vice-Chair.


R. Howard (Chair): Sure. Okay. Can I just ask Madam Clerk what that does to the timing of our report preparation? That seems a little tight. Could we go to the tenth, MLA Donaldson?


D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Sure.


R. Howard (Chair): What's Friday? Friday is the 11th, I guess. Friday the 11th?

[ Page 1757 ]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Staff will be working this weekend, I'm sure, on finalizing the report, but it would be helpful to have the final in their hands by the 11th, I would suggest, if more time is required.


R. Howard (Chair): Okay. Is the 11th all right, then, MLA Donaldson?


D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Yeah. Chair, I want to be put on the record to record the displeasure and objections that the members from the official opposition have on this committee to the way consensus wasn't achieved, specifically on two matters — one around the letter from the Chair that is being proposed to be part of this report, and the other being the recommendations, unilaterally, by the Chair to place priority on certain recommendations over others. I just want it noted that we, as the official opposition members, were never consulted on those points and, in fact, just were informed about them 24 hours ago, subsequent to this meeting being the last meeting.


The inclusion of these elements were not reached by consensus. We'd like that recorded. In the spirit of…. This is supposed to be a bipartisan committee attempting to reach consensus on this document. We don't believe the process from the government side reflected that, especially in relation to these two elements.


R. Howard (Chair): Thank you, MLA Donaldson. I would just respond to that by saying in terms of attempting to reach consensus, we've put in many, many hours on recommendations and wordsmithing to try and get to a point where we had as many consensus items as possible. On the 24 hours' notice on the two issues that you mentioned, that's similar, I guess, to the notice we had for the report itself — right? — for the body of the report.


[2025]

We're doing our very best to be mindful of the fact that we've tried to reach a consensus report. We're also recognizing the fact that the government has a majority, and we need to reflect that as well.


So on the report, I'll call the question.


Motion approved on the following division:


M. Stilwell: Do you want me to make a motion as revised? We voted on it — right? With changes.


B. Bennett: Okay. I move that the Chair deposit a copy of the Budget 2012 consultation report with the Office of the Clerk and that the Chair present the report to the House at the earliest opportunity.


Motion approved.


R. Howard (Chair): Motion to adjourn. So moved — Thornthwaite, thank you. We're adjourned.


The committee adjourned at 8:27 p.m.

[ Return to: Finance and Government Services Committee Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada