Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 55 — Tuesday, November 25, 2014 (HTML)

Present: Dan Ashton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Gary Holman, MLA; Mike Morris, MLA; John Yap, MLA

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

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

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS
Page
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists	1319
E. Denham
Office of the Merit Commissioner	1323
F. Spencer
Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner	1329
P. Fraser

D. Ashton (Chair): Good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming. If I could get a motion to open this meeting up. Moved by Carole. Seconded, Mike.

D. Ashton (Chair): We have a bit of a busy afternoon. First up, we have the Privacy Commissioner and Office of the Lobbyists.

Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner and Office of
the Registrar of Lobbyists

E. Denham: Good afternoon, hon. Chair, Madam Deputy Chair and members of the committee. Joining me today are Jay Fedorak, who is deputy registrar and assistant commissioner, and Dave Van Swieten, executive director of shared services. I think you had the opportunity of meeting Dave this morning in the presentation with my colleague Kim Carter. I also have Michael McEvoy, deputy commissioner, and Cara McGregor, our director of communications, in the back.

I understand that you have copies of my budget submission, service plan and annual reports. I'm going to keep my remarks as brief as humanly possible, to provide more time for questions and discussion. I know we have a really abbreviated time this afternoon.

For the benefit of the new committee members, I'm going to briefly describe the work of our offices, highlight key accomplishments and outline our priorities for the coming fiscal year.

Many of you know that I wear two hats. I'm the registrar of lobbyists as well as the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I'm going to begin with my role as registrar of lobbyists. My job is to monitor and enforce the Lobbyists Registration Act, or the LRA.

The purpose of the legislation is to promote transparency in lobbying and give the public the ability to know at any given time who's lobbying whom and on whose behalf. We use a variety of strategies to educate and inform lobbyists of their responsibilities, from publishing advisory bulletins to carefully reviewing new or updated registrations to make sure that they're accurate and complete.

We also investigate possible contraventions of the LRA. We're actually in the second year of intensifying our efforts to investigate instances of non-compliance. In the past fiscal year we've conducted 178 compliance reviews, which are reviews of a lobbyist's activities identified either through a complaint, an inquiry or an environmental scan by our staff.

As I've outlined in my budget submission, my first priority in this area in the coming year is to continue enhancing our enforcement capacity.

My second priority for the ORL is continuing to advocate for legislative change. In November of 2013 I tabled a report in the Legislature recommending five critical amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act. These recommendations are set out in detail on page 7 of the budget submission, so I won't repeat them here.

I will note, though, that these recommendations have the support of the majority of stakeholders that we consulted. They're practical, and they would be cost-neutral to implement. Most importantly, they would very much improve transparency in lobbying and the accuracy of the information in our registry about which MLAs or which senior public servants actually got lobbied, all to the benefit of the public.

I've met with the Minister of Justice about these amendments, and I'm going to continue to make the cause for legislative change in the coming year.

My third priority for the ORL is to develop a public education plan to meet the needs of lobbyists, stakeholders and the public.

I'm going to turn now to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, where it's my job to enforce the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which covers 2,900 public bodies, and also the Personal Information Protection Act, which applies to more than 380,000 private sector organizations and not-for-profits in the province.

I have the power to undertake appeals concerning users' access-to-information requests and also to investigate complaints relating to an individual's privacy rights, both in the public sector and in the private sector.

These complaints are about delays; they're about fees and difficulties in obtaining records from a public body; or they concern the collection, use or the security of people's private information in the hands of a public body or in the hands of a private organization.

The office also provides essential guidance to legislators on draft legislation and to the public on privacy rights and obligations. We're the key resource in the province for citizens and organizations seeking redress for contraventions of the law. We also provide substantial legal and policy analysis in emerging issues in respect of privacy and technology.

As a regulator, we're the guardian of citizen and consumer rights, but we also contribute advice and commentary on the use of new technology, which is important for government and business in making operational commitments.
[ Page 1320 ]

Pages 9 through 14 of my budget submission outline the OIPC's major accomplishments over the past year, so I won't repeat them here.

My primary concern for the next fiscal year, and the balance of my presentation to the committee, is to address the significant growth in demand for our services and also to reduce the growing wait times facing citizens and consumers requesting the intervention of our office.

As more requests for access to information are made to municipalities, health authorities, universities, schools and government ministries, more appeals of their decisions are coming to our office. As citizens become aware of risks to privacy posed by new technology and brought by growing demands of law enforcement or commercial actors for access to their digital data, they're asking our office to address concerns in this regard.

As well, an increasing number of government agencies and businesses come to us for policy and compliance advice before embarking on a new program or a new IT system.

It seems that every day there are new stories about privacy breaches or the risk that new legislation or new technology poses to privacy. There are stories about drones flying through people's backyards, body-worn cameras for police and the security of people's medical records. So it's very encouraging to me that the public is increasingly aware of privacy issues and that they express a real concern about technology's impact on personal privacy.

But there's a "but." These concerns created a significant increase in the workload of my office, amounting to a 33 percent increase in complaint and appeals files. We had 1,061 files coming in the door last year. This year it's 1,422 complaints. Many other jurisdictions are facing similar increases in demand, and like my counterparts across Canada and the world, this increase in workload occurs in the context of fiscal constraint measures that have a significant impact on our work.

With the incoming complaints showing no sign of abating, it's almost impossible for us to keep up with the number of complaints and appeals that are coming through our door. We don't have the funds within our current allocation to hire additional staff to help manage the load. As a result of that, wait times have increased, and we've got a backlog of approximately 220 files awaiting assignment to an investigator and 90 files awaiting assignment at adjudication. In practical terms, this means a delay of approximately five months from the time that our office receives a complaint to the time an investigator begins to work on it.

Investigation files take an average of five months to complete, and if the matter can't be resolved at this stage, then it proceeds to the next step, which is adjudication. We're an expert tribunal. Citizens have to wait for more than a year for services of an adjudicator to issue a binding order.

The law mandates that my office completes appeals relating to access-to-information requests within 90 business days, but in many cases those files are still in the backlog awaiting assignment to an investigator when that 90-day deadline comes due. While we've taken steps to secure our technical legal ability to continue to investigate by getting the complainant's consent, the spirit of the law, that of timely access to services, is not being fulfilled.

I'm deeply troubled by these delays. They become even more problematic in cases where citizens have already waited an exceedingly long period to get their initial response from a public body or redress for their privacy complaint. The delays have a negative impact on complainants but also on organizations and on public bodies, who are faced with increasing costs and uncertainty while they're waiting for a resolution to a complaint.

We're doing everything that we can to address the backlog within our current budget. In the past year we've closed the highest number of complaint and appeal files in the history of our office — 1,311 files closed in the past year. We've also developed strategies to handle this challenge to the extent we can within our existing funding.

I've diverted further professional services funds to hire some temporary investigators and adjudicators. So we're taking steps to manage our current backlog in such a way that's fair and equitable to the greatest number of applicants, but we have to bring the backlog down. As a committee, you have a very difficult choice to make in a challenging economic climate, but it's my responsibility to alert the Legislature to the risk that my office is facing in meeting our mandate.

Last year I informed the committee of the cost pressures that we faced as a result of unfunded salary and benefit increases mandated by government as well as increases in rent and utilities — increases that we have no control over. This year we're actually facing further increases for a total grossed cost pressure of $340,000 for 2015-16 and for future years. I believe that we can absorb these cost pressures within our current budget allocation through 2015-16 as we absorbed them last year.

I've made reductions to travel, professional services contracts and a number of other adjustments totalling $133,000. But to fully cover these costs, I would require the approval of the committee to permanently remove the spending restriction on my office regarding unused judicial review funds.

Last month I appeared before the committee, and you granted my request to remove the spending restrictions on the dedicated budget of $300,000 for legal services relating to judicial reviews to allow me to cover cost pressures within my 2014-15 budget. I'm now asking the committee to permanently remove this spending restriction. That would enable me the flexibility to cover off the remaining cost pressures and allow us to remain within our current budget of $5.526 million.

Although this would permit us to stay within our cur-
[ Page 1321 ]
rent budget, we would not be able to reduce the backlog of case files or the current delays in dealing with these files. We would only be treading water. I am therefore asking for one additional investigator position and the corresponding salary and benefit costs in the amount of $110,000 for a total budget request of $5.636 million. This represents an operating budget increase of 1.9 percent compared to both the current and previous fiscal years. This would bring our staff complement to 35.

That investigator would be able to close an additional 70 files over the course of the year. Combined with other measures in our backlog reduction plan, we anticipate one new investigator would allow us to reduce our backlog by 70 files to 150 files over the course of a year. This would also enable us to deliver faster outcomes to citizens by reducing the average wait time by one month, which constitutes a significant reduction of 20 percent.

In summary, I'm requesting permanent authority to use professional services funds previously dedicated for legal services for judicial review to partially meet the increase mandated by government and funding for an additional investigator to help reduce the backlog of files in the amount of $110,000. In total, this represents a requested operating budget of $5.636 million and a capital budget of $45,000 for 2015-16.

Before I take your questions, I understand that there's certain information that the committee has asked of my office today. I got a note from Kate earlier. I can report that my office has 33 permanent employees whose salary is paid out of STOB 50. My salary is paid out of STOB 54. We have no temporary employees.

Of the 33 employees, seven are schedule A. They received increases of 1 percent in April of 2013, another 1 percent in December of 2013 and will receive a further 1 percent in April of 2015. The remaining 26 employees are management-level staff, and 24 of them received an increase of 3 percent in March of 2014, again an unfunded salary increase.

Thank you very much for consideration of my requests. I am happy to take any questions that you may have.

D. Ashton (Chair): Elizabeth, thank you very much. If you don't mind, we're on a first-name basis here.

G. Heyman: I'm just curious why it appears that in 2016-17 the operating budget request goes down by $45,000 and then back up the following year.

G. Heyman: What I have here is an operating budget of $5.636 million for '15-16 and $5.591 million for '16-17.

E. Denham: This could be the reduction due to amortization. That could be the explanation. I don't have the synopsis in front of me.

Dave, can you address that? I think there's an amortization reduction in that, in the year.

G. Heyman: Oh, apparently we have a typo on our synopsis, so let's skip the question.

E. Denham: Okay. Just for a clarification, the numbers in our budget on page 22 for those two years are $5.716 million and $5.716 million — so for those two years, though, if it's just a typo.

M. Morris: I guess it's like a lot of different agencies that we have throughout the province. I'm thinking of policing agencies. I'm thinking of a number of investigative agencies that we have out here. With the number of files, sometimes it becomes overwhelming.

I'm just wondering whether your agency triages these files. There are some that are, you know, like a barking dog complaint that we'd get as a police officer, something like that. Is there a way that your office can handle the major issues without compromising the integrity of the office, with the number of complaints that you get?

E. Denham: We do indeed triage complaints. For example, if we get a complaint about a major privacy breach that affects hundreds or thousands of people, then we are going to turn our attention to that. We also have the ability in our act to disregard complaints that are without merit, that don't have enough background for us to look into — frivolous and vexatious complaints. We have the ability to decide not to investigate in certain circumstances.

We can also group complaints. So if it's a number of complaints about police background checks, then we do one systemic investigation rather than following each of the separate complaints. We're always looking for ways to streamline our processes, and we have the ability to expedite complaints where it's a very significant issue, that the person gets a response.

The plain answer is, though, that there is just more work coming in our door, and we need to address it. As I say, we're beyond legal timelines. I think the Legislature intended timely resolution to access-to-information requests, and we're not able to meet our legislative mandate.
[ Page 1322 ]

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentation and for the work that you do. As I understand it, on page 18 you're summarizing the cost pressures. They're primarily around the wage bill and the negotiated increases for staff and also the position reclassifications. Do I have that right — that it's primarily wage bill–related cost pressures?

Then can you run through for me again the stipulation that your legal fees be frozen, and now you're requesting they be unfrozen? Can you just run through that kind of background again and remind us about that?

E. Denham: Yeah. Most of our cost pressures are due to mandated salary and benefit increases — almost entirely. Some rent increases. Things that we don't have control over.

In 2009 my predecessor came to this committee because there were mounting legal bills for judicial reviews. Just to remind the committee what a judicial review is, if we issue an order or a decision, either party has the ability to challenge that decision. And it's the court, so it goes before the court.

We have to hire external legal counsel to support us in our litigation. We can't control the number of times that parties are going to bring judicial reviews before our office, so again, we can't control that figure.

The committee said that $300,000 within our professional services envelope can be used for judicial reviews, but whatever is unused in that $300,000 has to be returned to the consolidated revenue fund at the end of the year. So there's a restriction on the use of that money.

When I came before the committee in October, with the cost pressures that I'm facing this fiscal year, I asked you to release the hold on that money so that I could actually cover off the unfunded salary increases. You said yes. I'm coming back to you and asking you for permanent release of the hold on that money.

The average amount that we spend a year is about $150,000, so I think that I could better use that money to fund my salary and benefit increases.

G. Holman: Just to play devil's advocate, though, why not just continue on the…? Come to the committee if you've got a surplus in the…. I presume it's issues around certainty. Why not come back to the committee and ask for the surplus of the fund, like you did last year?

E. Denham: I would need to come back every year and ask for the release of those funds. The history of the use of those funds has been, on average, half of that amount. The rest of it we've turned back to the consolidated revenue fund. Rather than ask you for an increase in my budget to cover the unfunded salary increases, I'm asking for the release of the restriction on those funds.

E. Foster: Further to that same line, if we were to…. I don't know whether we already grant that or not, but if it was granted, what happens if you use it and then you have the judicial reviews?

E. Denham: I would have to come back to the committee to say that I am going to need extra money. But there hasn't been a year since 2009 when we've come even close to spending $300,000.

Right now we have six judicial reviews. It usually takes about two years before a judicial review is complete. We have no way of funding — when the court date is going to be, how much it's going to cost us in litigation. Again, it's something we don't have a lot of control over, but since 2009 we've never expended the full amount.

G. Heyman: If I understand you correctly, you should have approximately a year's notice or a year's awareness of some impending uptick in legal costs. If you sought an increase in budget that wasn't granted, you would have time to make adjustments elsewhere in the budget to compensate.

G. Heyman: It means that the committee would not be put into a position of essentially having no choice in the matter. Well, there's always a choice, but you understand my point.

S. Gibson: This question goes back a little bit, related to what Mike was asking earlier. Coming out of a local government background, we would see increasingly more people expressing concerns about certain issues, right? We would call them, perhaps unkindly, frequent flyers. They would have systemic concerns, and you'd sometimes see them kind of coalescing around a certain issue.

Those people can be very labour-intensive. They're well-meaning people, and they're actually good citizens in many ways. But in some instances their interest in their own issues exceeds the capacity of a municipality to serve them and listen to them and respond to their needs in the way that they would like to be responded to.

I guess I think about that in terms of your organization, where you're sharing with us a concern that you have that you're not able to respond in a timely manner, which you used to be able to. I guess my question is really around how….

When I look at your site here…. I'm just reading a bit about it. "I'm somebody that feels something. I've been violated. But it's really only affecting my personal attitude to myself. I'm concerned that somebody is sharing some information. It's inconsequential, but it makes me hurt for some reason, so I become all emotional about it, and I come and talk to you."
[ Page 1323 ]

My question is: how can you deal with those kinds of people? They're genuinely concerned, but they're very labour-intensive, and they tie up the system. Probably, if you would be honest, some of those people drive you crazy, but you don't really know how to handle them. It ends up being a very large cost to the taxpayers, and we just don't have a lot of extra money right now.

E. Denham: Two points there. Yes, we do have frequent flyers. We have a new policy, because we want to be fair to all applicants, so we have a cap on the number of files that a frequent flyer can have before our office. I think that's fair because we are a public agency, and we have to be accessible to everyone in a fair way. So we have that policy.

Secondly, individuals that come with a complaint to our office — we have a refer-back policy. They first have to go to the organization that they're complaining about and try to satisfy their complaint there before they can come to us. Really, we're an investigative body. We're an appeal agency. So if we get a complaint about a private sector company, they have to first go to the company and try to resolve that and then come to us.

I can tell you that three times as many people will come to our office, and then we'll refer them back. Maybe a third of them will come back, at the end of the day, because they're not satisfied. I believe that we should give a public body or a private sector company the first chance to try to resolve a complaint rather than take it all in at the front end.

D. Ashton (Chair): Elizabeth, just a quick question. You have a new hire that you're asking for — $110,000. Where does that person fit in at? Is that a schedule A employee?

E. Denham: No, that's an investigator, so it would be a management-level employee.

E. Denham: It's the classification of their position. It's also because we're an officer of the Legislature, and because of the sensitivity of the files that we handle, those staff are exempt from union classification.

D. Ashton (Chair): We're assimilating all the information, and we'll get back very quickly. You'll also be following up on a written correspondence through our request from this morning, though? Please, if you don't mind.

E. Denham: I will. I gave you some of the answer, but we're going to be responding formally, in writing, to Kate's inquiry.

F. Spencer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be given the opportunity today to discuss with you the work of the Office of the Merit Commissioner over the past year, to briefly describe our planned work for the upcoming fiscal years and to address any questions you may have regarding my request for funds to support this important work. I'm accompanied this afternoon by Dave Van Swieten, whom you've already met and who will assist me in responding to questions you may have related to my expenditures and budget request.

Under section 5.1 of the Public Service Act I'm charged with the responsibility of monitoring the application of merit in hiring processes in the B.C. public service and determining if individuals, when appointed, are considered qualified for appointment. This is accomplished through the random audit of appointments to and from within the public service. I'm mandated to act as the final level of review of staffing decisions when an unsuccessful employee applicant to a competition requests my review of that competition.
[ Page 1324 ]

My office also carries out special audits of the various appointment types which fall within my jurisdiction, such as auxiliary appointments, short-term temporary appointments or direct appointments. From time to time we undertake special studies of various selection tools, methods or processes which may have come to our attention through our regular audit or review activity and which are considered to present some potential risk to merit-based hiring.

To carry out this work, I have had the support and commitment of a small staff, which consists of three permanent management-excluded employees and two excluded schedule A employees. We also engage, through professional services contracts, auditors who work on an as-and-when-required basis. I believe you know that I am a part-time appointee.

This afternoon I'll speak briefly to the work we've carried out since my last appearance before this committee; outline our priorities for the coming year and beyond; and present my request for the budget I consider necessary to fulfil my mandate, meet my statutory obligations and ensure that hiring in the B.C. public service is subject to appropriate, meaningful and independent oversight.

First, I'd like to talk to you about the results of the work we carried out in the past year. Our principal activity related to the audit of appointments — what we refer to as our merit performance audit. In this audit we examined a random sample of appointments made from September 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014. We did not conduct a full-year audit, to enable us to accommodate a change to audit cycles, to allow a review of our audit programs and to address workload issues within the office.

While a partial-year audit is not ideal — and B.C. Stats recommends we maintain a full-year audit cycle going forward — the results from the 2013-14 audit are still considered statistically sound. Based on advice from B.C. Stats with respect to an appropriate rate of sampling, 150 appointments were selected for audit. Each appointment was examined to determine if merit was applied in the process or if there may have been issues or flaws in the process. We also examined the qualifications of the individuals appointed.

Deputy ministers and heads of organizations were provided with detailed reports of audits conducted on appointments within their organizations. In October the head of the B.C. Public Service Agency received the overall results of the audit, including some detailed analysis and recommendations to address areas of weakness or concern. The agency's response to this audit report indicates that they will be taking steps to implement recommendations and improve practice.

The report on the 2013-14 merit performance audit was tabled by the Speaker and released publicly yesterday. I apologize. Timing did not permit that you be provided with a copy of this report in advance of this meeting. However, you will have received an electronic version by now. I have provided you with a sheet entitled "Service Plan Addendum," which is two charts which I'll speak to very briefly.

By way of background and in short, our audits of appointments look at who was appointed and how they were appointed. With respect to the "who," we determine if the individuals, when appointed, met the qualifications specified as required for the position. I'm pleased to say that in 2013-14 we once again found that all individuals appointed met the specified education and experience requirements and passed the assessment process. Also, we found no evidence of patronage.

With respect to how individuals were appointed, we reached one of three findings: that merit was applied in the process, that merit was not applied or that merit was applied but there were issues identified with the process — a finding we refer to as merit with exception. As the issues or flaws found in merit-with-exception appointments do not have an identifiable negative impact on the outcome of the process, these are still considered to be meritorious appointments.

You'll see from chart 1, in the addendum that I had handed around, that in 2013-14 the percentage of hiring processes without issues or flaws — that is, the clean merit appointments — has decreased, from 73.5 percent in 2009 to 52.7 percent in 2013-14. If, however, you look at the two merit categories together — that is, merit and merit-with-exception appointments — they represent 90.7 percent of findings, a rate marginally lower than last year, when this rate was 92.1 percent.

While concern still exists, and this is somewhat of a cautionary flag, many of the issues and flaws we've identified are considered very fixable with training, changes to practice, communication and attention to detail.

On the other hand, the audit found that the percentage of appointments which were not the result of merit-based processes has reached its highest level. We found that merit was not applied in 9.3 percent of the appointments audited, which, when extrapolated to the general population, means that 161 appointments made within the seven-month audit period were not based on merit. In the audit of 2012 appointments the rate was 6.1 percent, in 2011 it was 8.5 percent, and in 2009 it was 2.3 percent.

Where we found that merit was not applied in appointment processes, it was as a result of flaws which affected the outcome — flaws in the overall process, flaws in how assessments were conducted, flaws in calculations or in transcribing scores or in the application of overly restricted areas of competition which we considered to be prejudicial to a fair and open process.

Chart 2 on the handout that I provided you shows the frequency with which the various issues we have identified have been found through the last four audit periods.

While I'm somewhat discouraged that we have not found overall improvement in merit-based hiring
[ Page 1325 ]
through this last audit, I believe, again, that many of these issues can be addressed, and the B.C. Public Service Agency has committed to such action.

Through ongoing audit and feedback to managers in the agency, I'm proud of the work of the Office of the Merit Commissioner in bringing issues to the fore, highlighting areas for improvement and influencing positive change in hiring practices in the B.C. public service.

The number of requests for reviews by employees to conduct a review of a staffing decision varies from year to year for no discernable reason, making the workload associated with the conduct of these reviews very unpredictable. As appointments under review are generally held in abeyance pending my decision, my office gives these requests priority consideration.

This past year we received ten eligible requests for review. Although the number may be considered small given the number of appointments made in the public service each year, for comparison purposes, in 2012-13 only four eligible requests were received.

This past year the complexity of the issues under review and the need for extended investigations and consultations also increased the time and resources needed to complete the work and enable me to reach a decision.

In the past year we also concluded our study of the use of behavioural interviewing in the public service, a technique which is widely used. This was a concern for the office as it is, at times, the only assessment tool used to distinguish between candidates in a competition, and it is one of the greatest sources of concern brought before me by unsuccessful employee applicants.

Given its impact on merit-based hiring, we conducted a study to identify the essential elements of good behavioural interviewing methods and then took a close look at the B.C. public service to see if these key elements are in place.

We were pleased to conclude that the framework in use is well-designed and that where there may be areas of weakness, for the most part, any risk can be mitigated — again, through training and making information readily accessible to hiring managers and employees. Recommendations to that effect were provided and accepted by the B.C. Public Service Agency.

Our priority for the current and coming fiscal years is to focus on our main business lines: audits and staffing reviews.

We have commenced an audit of appointments made in 2014-15. As in the past, the audit will sample appointments made throughout the province in large and small organizations, in all occupational groups and in unionized positions as well as management-excluded positions. We will be sampling at a 7 percent rate, slightly above the minimum rate recommended by B.C. Stats if we want to be able to say the results are generalizable — in other words, reflective of hiring practices across the public service — and if we want to be able to compare with confidence with the results from previous audits.

This sampling rate has resulted in 129 appointments being selected for audit in the first half of the fiscal year. We anticipate a total sample size of at least 250 for 2014-15, or perhaps even 300, which would be twice the size of the '13-14 sample. Results from this audit will be reported out to organization heads and the B.C. Public Service Agency in February and September 2015.

So far this year we have already received 12 requests for final-level review of staffing decisions, and I've directed three reconsiderations. As mentioned, we give reviews high priority so depending on how many requests are received and when, the impact on the ongoing workload associated with the merit performance audit can be significant. Also, when reconsiderations are directed, it is generally an indication of a complex issue which warrants in-depth investigation and careful consideration.

In addition to our regular merit performance audits, from time to time the office may conduct a special audit of a particular appointment type or a study of a specific aspect of the hiring process.

For example, during the conduct of the annual merit performance audits the office has noted what appears to be an increasing reliance on the use of electronic self-assessment questionnaires for screening or short-listing applications. Such questionnaires are seen as a means of increasing efficiency in the initial stages of an assessment process in hiring competitions.

The incorrect or inconsistent application of these tools, however, which then has the potential to affect the quality of merit-based hiring, is of interest to the office. A special study is underway which will provide an overview of the development and current use of self-assessment questionnaires, information on their prevalence, as well as an identification of the limitation, risks and conditions for best use.

In 2011 we conducted an audit of auxiliary appointments — appointments meant to be of a short-term nature, generally for a specific purpose such as maternity leave replacements. As such, unlike long-term or regular appointments, these appointments are exempt from the requirement for a competitive process. The findings from this audit indicated that quite a number of these appointments were in fact long term, without necessarily being the result of a merit-based process. We would like to conduct a follow-up audit of auxiliary appointments to see if the situation has improved.

The risk to merit-based hiring in this situation is that for individuals outside the public service, auxiliary appointments often represent the avenue into full-time employment, and from the employer's perspective, auxiliary appointees are frequently the labour pool from which permanent employees are drawn. To build this pool of candidates without a proper and merit-based hiring process affects the long-term quality of the public service. We are planning to conduct this audit in 2015-16.
[ Page 1326 ]

In order to fulfil my statutory mandate and address the priorities for the coming year, including the anticipated increase in audit activity and requests for review, I request consideration of the proposed budget before you for the Office of the Merit Commissioner.

The total budget ask, aside from capital, of $1.054 million for 2015-16 fiscal year is unchanged from the request submitted to this committee and approved in principle last year and represents an increase of $15,000, which is less than 1½ percent over this year's budget.

This budget is considered necessary to sustain operations, and the slight budget augmentation is requested to cover non-discretionary increases in salary and benefits costs, and increasing costs of building occupancy, which includes rent, insurance, hydro and taxes.

As mentioned, I have a small staff, so the unexpected loss of one of these employees last year not only left us with a significant gap in our capacity but also resulted in an unexpected budget surplus. Toward the end of the year we filled this vacancy on a temporary basis and are now concluding the hiring process to appoint a permanent research analyst. This will help to stabilize the office workforce and address workload issues.

Page 11 of my service plan illustrates my office structure and indicates my current FTE count.

Amortization expenses, which are mostly related to tenant improvements, will start to reduce starting next year, which will enable me to offset, in part, increased costs in other areas. However, I still forecast a $15,000 shortfall in operating funds in fiscal year 2015-16, due mainly to these non-discretionary increases in salary and benefits.

I consider the current allocation of $15,000 for capital expenditures to be reasonable and request funds be approved once again at that level.

In summary, I'm respectfully requesting the committee's approval of an operating budget for the Office of the Merit Commissioner for the coming fiscal year in the amount of $1.054 million and a capital budget of $15,000. If approved, I would propose a stand-pat budget for fiscal year 2016-17 and a minor increase of $2,000 in 2017-18. I hope you'll find this request fiscally prudent and financially responsible.

G. Heyman: I just want to refresh my memory of history. If I recall correctly, when the Office of the Merit Commissioner was first established in 2001, the office was held by the person who, at the time, was the head of the Public Service Agency. At some point, if I'm remembering correctly or making the right assumption, that was no longer the case, and the Merit Commissioner took over the duties of the public service commissioner. Do I have that right?

F. Spencer: Not quite right. I think what the situation was is there was somebody who performed these oversight activities who was a part of the Public Service Agency. It would have been — let me see now — in 2006, I believe. Kate might be able to help me there. An independent office was created, so there was an independent officer of the Legislature. Joy Illington was appointed at that time. So it was removed from the Public Service Agency.

The B.C. Public Service Agency still has a head of that agency, or a deputy minister. They carry on with policy and operational functions. Then my office has that oversight responsibility.

G. Heyman: Was Ms. Illington previously in the position of the Public Service Agency before the independent office was created?

F. Spencer: She wasn't the head of the B.C. Public Service Agency. But did she occupy a position there? I don't believe so.

G. Heyman: My memory is that she was responsible for oversight of complaints about fairness in competition practices, but she may have always done that as the Merit Commissioner. My memory was that she had a different title at one point.

F. Spencer: She would have had a different title if she'd been in the B.C. public service commission at that time. But I'm sorry. I don't know whether or not she was actually there.

E. Foster: Two quick questions. One, did I hear you say that your position was not full-time?

F. Spencer: Well, it's half-time. I call it my full-time half-time job, but yeah, it's half-time.

E. Foster: Thank you. And the second question is: when you're considering a posting, for example, and when you're looking at merit, do you consider seniority as part of that merit evaluation?
[ Page 1327 ]

F. Spencer: Well, the Public Service Act outlines the factors that are to be considered when you're looking at an appointment to determine whether or not merit's been made. One of those factors is called years of service, which is generally seniority.

When we're looking at an appointment to see whether or not it's been based on merit, we look to see whether or not years of service (a) has been considered, and (b) if it's been considered, it has been considered correctly. We do make a finding on that if there is any kind of an issue.

S. Gibson: This is an interesting presentation. A couple of questions, if I may. Merit is a complicated thing, because knowing a little bit about HR, somebody may merit consideration, to use that word as a verb, but they don't match the culture. So you have somebody that cosmetically, or on the surface, matches, but when you dig a little deeper, you find out that they don't match the culture of the department they want to work in.

That's my first question. It's more esoteric, I guess, but how do you discern that? It's not quantifiable, really. Do you know what I mean?

F. Spencer: Well, there are methods that are used in the hiring process to determine, I guess, what sometimes is called a fit within an organization. If that is in fact the case, if people are using that as part of the assessment process — some kind of a fit assessment — my role is to look at how they're doing that and determine whether or not it's an appropriate use. Is it correctly applied, consistently applied, and those sorts of things. There are some methods to do that.

S. Gibson: Do all the government agencies that you invigilate have the same evaluation procedures?

F. Spencer: No, they don't. That's part of the challenge. There's a basic process that they all follow, but they may use different tools at different points in the assessment process.

Certainly, they would use different interviewing techniques. They would assign different ratings. It's up to each individual hiring manager to lay out, at the beginning of a hiring process, what their process is going to be.

What we look to see is: is that determined? Is it laid out? Is it correct? Is it assessing all the factors of merit that need to be assessed? And has it been properly applied in a fair manner?

S. Gibson: For those employees who feel hard done by or marginalized or treated unfairly, isn't there some concern that if they use your office they're going to essentially be discarded in future promotions because they'll see them as someone who has used the system to their advantage and other people have been criticized for poor promotion strategy?

F. Spencer: Right. I think that's always a concern. We have no way of knowing how many people don't come forward for those reasons. Certainly, we try to encourage, as much as possible, people coming forward and asking those questions.

I'm the last step in a three-step process. The first step is going to the hiring manager and getting some feedback about performance. The second step is going to the deputy minister to get their review of the situation. Then if people are dissatisfied, they can come to me.

What we find — because we do gather some information on the number of requests that go to deputy ministers — is that often people don't move past that step. I'm not sure if it's because, as you say, they may be concerned. But there is some indication that, in fact, they find a response that satisfies their concerns at that level.

I think a great number of people involved in selection processes do get feedback from hiring managers. Hopefully, their concerns are addressed there as well.

We are concerned that people don't suffer reprisal if they come forward. We haven't heard of those kinds of circumstances. If we do, we take those very seriously and go to the deputy minister and bring that to their attention.

Just about the staff, well the surplus for last year. I think you mentioned that the reason for that was because of staff turnover. Did that last for a year, or is there some actual surplus in there? Or is it all due to…?

F. Spencer: That's right. We tried to manage pretty close to the line with the budgets. I think that represents almost close to 10 percent of my budget lapsed. As I was just saying to Dave before we started, I lost 20 percent of my workforce last year when I lost one employee. So that has a significant impact on my budget and my ability to spend that.

The position was vacant until late into the fiscal year, so I wasn't able to expend the funds that I had anticipated. It was an unanticipated departure.

Aside from that, there was some lapse in other areas that, again, were unpredicted. I think there were, perhaps, some amortization expenses that we had anticipated might be higher and some that were basically beyond
[ Page 1328 ]
my control, but the bulk of it was related to the salary of that one employee.

Fiona, just a quick one on professional services. STOB 4 — I think it was — includes "funding for professional service contracts such as contracts for audit activities."

F. Spencer: Yes. We conduct our audits…. We use professional services contracts to engage auditors on as-and-when-required basis to do, basically, a lot of the donkey work that's associated with an audit.

We get files from the various ministries that have to do with the appointments that are being audited. You can appreciate with a staff of four, we couldn't carry out all the investigative work that's required to look at, you know, 300 audits. We give these out to our contracted auditors.

They look at the appointment processes, select information and examine the documentation that they received against a standard that we use to determine if the process was merit-based. Then they provide their findings to us. Then in my office what we do is review those findings, and then we look at them as a whole so that we can bring some consistency to the audit reports that we provide.

That's the bulk of what I spend that professional services money on — our auditors. We have four of them. We currently have four on staff. As I say, we use them on an as-and-when-required basis. Depending on the number of appointments that are identified for audit, we would give them out to them as appropriate.

D. Ashton (Chair): And they're outside? They're garnered from outside of government? Is that correct?

F. Spencer: Yes, they are independent. They're contractors. We hire them on a contract basis. We engage them, as I say, as and when required for a three-year period. We've had them working for us for a number of years, so they're very familiar with the government processes. They know the audit program, and they know what the requirements are for merit-based hiring.

D. Ashton (Chair): Could I ask a question? Could you expand there? Are there additional savings in your office by an expansion of some of their capacity?

F. Spencer: Well, I don't think so. I think if we started to use more…. What happens is that once they've done their work, it comes to my office for review, for some quality control and to bring some consistency to the work that's done. If we just have more and more files coming in from external auditors into my office, we're still going to have to manage internally with the workload that is generated from them.

D. Ashton (Chair): So those auditors would provide their information to the performance auditors that you have here? Is that correct?

D. Ashton (Chair): You have a research analyst and an administrative assistant. So the outside work goes to those two individuals, they vet it, and then it's passed up the line to the next….

F. Spencer: That's right. Then it's passed to the manager of audit review, and then it eventually comes to me for review and sign-off.

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay. I was planting a seed if there is availability to look at things a little bit differently. And I would challenge you….

F. Spencer: We try. We are looking at ways to streamline the process. What I would like to do is to be able to provide the results of our audits in a more timely fashion. Right now, of course, we have to wait until the appointments have occurred. Then you ask for the files and send them out. But because of the workload issue within my office, with two performance auditors and one manager, it takes some time to get through all those files as they're coming in from the auditors.

If I had more internal capacity — and that's by adding this research associate or analyst; we're hoping to do that — we should be able to process those files a little quicker and, of course, get feedback to hiring managers so that where we're finding issues or problems with hiring processes, they can be corrected so they're not continuing on into the next audit cycle.

The process is that we're taking the submissions. We'll have an opportunity to talk amongst ourselves, and then we'll get back to you. You did see the request that came out today asking for your full-time staff. So thank you if we could get that.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you very much for being efficient and getting through. That's great.

S. Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to apologize for being late to the delegation. I'm sorry.

D. Ashton (Chair): We'll take a quick recess. Mr. Fraser is on his way over.
[ Page 1329 ]

D. Ashton (Chair): We're out of recess, and I would like to welcome the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Mr. Fraser, and Linda Pink.

Paul, first names, if you don't mind. We're actually a committee that works really well together, and if you wouldn't mind, just allow us the opportunity to use first names. Please, the floor is yours, and then we'll look forward to questions or comments at the end of your presentation.

P. Fraser: With me is indeed Linda Pink, who is the executive coordinator of our office. I'm delighted to be here with all of you, or some of you — as many as show up.

I am going to say something now that this committee has never heard from anybody that has appeared before you talking about money. That is, my office is FAT. It's "f" for frugal, it's "a" for accountability, and it's "t" for thorough. So I'm fat.

I'm delighted to be here not asking for money, almost as delighted as you are to hear me say that. Of course, the interesting thing about appearing in front of you all is that while there's some material that I'm not going to go through in any detail about what the office does, you've all had the experience of experiencing the office.

Whether that's been a good or a bad experience may be the subject of discussion for another day, but at least we don't have to go through the bare mechanics of what it is that the office is designed to do. All of that is set out, however, in the budget proposal for posterity and for those who may come after us.

As you will see, we're not asking for any more money. It's not just because, like everyone else, we've been made painfully aware of the fact that there is no money easily available. It is because we have contrived over the last couple of cycles to put ourselves in a position where we are now able to tell you that we can live within our budget allotment for the forthcoming year.

How that has happened really comes down to this. Linda is our only full-time employee. Everyone else in the office is part-time. We are in a situation, or have been in a situation over the years, where as frugal as that is, and as simple as it is, it causes all kinds of — as you can imagine — human resource problems when people think, for example, that they might be entitled to vacations or they might even get sick. We've had to backfill and try to come up with staff that is permanent.

Last year, those of you who were on the committee will remember, our main thrust was to say that what we want to do is to convert one of our part-time people — in that case, it was our legal officer — from a part-time, contract position to a permanent position.

To do that was at some expense, principally because of, as we all know, the benefits component in the salary piece of the pie. We were able to accomplish that.

This year we are moving someone who has been with us from a position where she is the receptionist-clerk up into, at the beginning of next year, a permanent position as well. Again, it's part-time, but at least these people have taken steps, from us, that allow them to know that they're valuable and that they're not in any way precarious.

Contract employees are great if you've got a cycle that doesn't depend on people showing up every day. To the extent that we still have some people who are on contract — or who may be, because we're likely to have to hire somebody during our peak disclosure periods who will be on contract — we're going to be able to manage that.

We're going to be able to manage both the permanent workforce that we now have created and whatever complementary contract workforce we need within the confines of the amount of money which the committee was generous enough to give us last year.

Now, all of that is always subject to the caveat that must come in circumstances where, as we all know, we preside over a complaint-driven or a request-driven process. We have no way of knowing what's going to happen tomorrow. When it happens — and if it happens — there's a related cost.

One of the other reasons that we can come before you this year and not ask for more money but simply stay the course for the time being is that because we have a permanent, albeit part-time, legal officer now on staff, we have not in this year had to go out and hire lawyers and outside legal help — which is, heaven knows, expensive. In a sense, part of the reason that we're here with the good news is that we've been lucky in this current fiscal year. And long may the luck continue.

It's not something that we can predict year over year. The committee, in past years, has resisted — at first I was disappointed, but I soon began to realize that it really is appropriate — the temptation to set up a contingency fund that we could draw against.

The reality is that the committee is accessible and has always been accessible to us, and if something happens that requires that we get money, we're able to come and put the case forward, rather than simply asking you to commit some funds on the basis of not knowing how exactly they're going to be spent.

That's the overview. I don't know how much more of the particular you may want to discuss with me.

I do want to say this, Mr. Chair and Madam Vice-Chair, and I do it not because this is the sixth time that I've appeared before the committee but because I think it's an
[ Page 1330 ]
idea that this committee might consider going forward in terms of how it informs itself about the work of the officers of the assembly generally. I don't presume to speak for them. I speak only for myself.

I've shared, I think, with one or two of you the experience of other jurisdictions where legislatures, to which all of the officers are accountable…. You know, we are accountable. People talk about officers being watchdogs and reporting to the public and so on. We do all of that, but we're employed by the Legislature. It's from the Legislature that our authority springs.

When we come before you, as officers — and I guess I should speak only for myself — to, effectively, show our accountability, apart from our annual report, the only opportunity we have in a calendar year is this one. And whenever we do come, we're talking about money. If there isn't any money because of various constraints, then people go away thinking: "Well, there was no money. They didn't get any more money, so they can't really have been making much of a productive effort." That may be a bit melodramatic.

The reality is that when you come to listen to what we have to say, you may well want to ask questions about how the system operates and the extent to which it could be improved, not just on the financial side but on the service side. You know very little, perhaps, about the inner workings of our offices, and you could only find out about it in these sort of constricted time circumstances.

What have other people done? Well, in the province of Alberta — I'm aware of this — there is a committee of the Legislature which is, I think, styled as the Legislative Officers Committee. It's stocked with the appropriate representation of people from both sides of the House. They meet at least once a year as a committee, but they meet on other occasions as a kind of subcommittee. They meet maybe two or three times a year with the individual officers.

In those meetings the officers, in a relaxed way, and the members, in a way that allows them to ask searching questions, find out if there's anything going on or if this is just an area that's become numb and not very productive over the years.

In terms of what they're actually doing or dreaming of doing or wanting to do, what would merit, just in the abstract, endowing them with more operating funds? When they come to meet with the committee at the end of the line, if you like…. Members of that committee sit — a couple of them, I'm told — on the Finance Committee. They can inform the work of the Finance Committee and — perhaps in caucus, privately among you — direct your attention to some areas that may have concerned them over the years.

I think it's something that we may want to consider here. I think, as a measure of accountability and doing it efficiently, it would help us along the way.

The only thing, Mr. Chair — and I'm very close to the end — that's different from what we've ever done before here is that we've dropped in, as you may have seen, something called a capital account or capital…. What is it? I can't remember the word.

P. Fraser: I don't know how it works, but I gather that there's an amortization in it somehow. It counts back into your budget if it's actually drawn on.

We've never had a capital account. The office is so small — it's the smallest of all of the officers — that if we can see a capital requirement, then we can pretty much predict when that's going to happen and ask for the money at the time.

At the moment we're in a situation where we live in very pleasant circumstances. We don't have ancient equipment, but we have some equipment that's now at least eight years old and may have to be replaced. I guess my point is that if and when it does, without the benefit of a capital account or a capital expenditures valve, what's going to happen is that our operating budget, which is very close to the wind, is going to have an inappropriate impact.

On that basis, I've suggested that we have a capital account, however it's set up — and I'm sorry that I don't know the detail of this — for $25,000, which happens to be, I notice, what the police commissioner's capital account is. The other officers have large capital accounts, in the case of large offices. I think the smallest is either the police commissioner or the Merit Commissioner, who just left here.

I'm suggesting that, not because I think we're going to spend it next year. But if we do have to make some capital expenditures, I'd like it not to impact on our operating budget and, thereby, directly affect the work that we do.

The $25,000. Do you have any inkling of what you think you might need? Is it computer equipment? Is it communications equipment, software? What do you have in mind?

P. Fraser: It would be computers more than anything — almost immediately, John. Those are the things that are the oldest in the office and which frighten me the most, because I don't know how much they really cost. We live in an office that has some venerable and very pleasant furniture, which has all been recycled. We see no need to replace any of that.

We're fully built out, and we're quite comfortable, but it's the electronic stuff that I worry about. The big copying dimension is, of course, leased, so we can predict that. But if we had to acquire computers, and we've got about — what? — four or five, perhaps six on-desk computers, we would be in trouble. That's really what concerns me most.

J. Yap: In the last few years you've automated systems, right? You've gone to electronic reporting. We've chatted about this. I think you've made a lot of progress in streamlining the reporting. Already, that investment has happened. Do you foresee any additional initiatives? I assume that those expenditures you funded internally from your budget.

P. Fraser: We did. We funded them internally, but as part of the generosity — and I pay all of our compliments to them — of the legislative IT people — who, when we said we needed that capacity to assist members to be able to quickly and more efficiently process their forms, were quick to say that they had the capacity and could help.

More than that…. Despite the department of Finance, when I asked them, telling me that to help us in that respect would range somewhere between $65,000 and $85,000, they charged us nothing. They have continued to service our needs.

Our investment, though — speaking to, really, the point of your question — was that we had and still have a project officer who's been on a part-time contract basis. Her term of employment with us will end in the middle of December. She is the one who worked with them, setting up the program that you see.

If we wanted to make sure that those of your colleagues who have tried to respond to the forms by using their iPad could do so, we would have to then get into money. But as long as people use their Leg. computers, then we're fine going forward and we won't have any — well, we haven't had any — additional IT expense. Perhaps I've let the cat out of the bag here, but it was very kind of them.

J. Yap: One more question. On the $25,000, is that the maximum total amount, or is that the potential amortized amount for the year?

J. Yap: Maximum total amount. So you're not thinking $25,000 per year amortization.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Paul, for the presentation. I just want to touch first on your idea around the independent officers. I think all of us have felt the pressure of time in going through this process. Certainly for me, new on the committee, I felt the pressure of time in being able to really ask all the kinds of questions and understand the offices in the way that we really should.

I certainly support the initiative. I think it's something the committee could have a conversation about once we get through this process of how we look at our year's work when it comes to budget review, when it comes to the independent officers. I don't think it would need another committee. I think you have a committee structure in place.

I think a once-a-year drop-in by the independent officers, spread out throughout the year to give us a chance just to ask questions about their work, would help inform us, then, in this contracted amount of time to be able to go through their budgets and have a good understanding. So I'd ask the Chair for us to bring that back as a group, because I think it's something that would be helpful for us.

Just a quick question on the work of the office. We've talked a lot about cycles with other independent officers, that there are highs — obviously, Elections B.C. being a perfect example, where their highs come at elections. I just wanted to…. I'm guessing that again in your office the cycle would be after the election, when you have new members coming in and new disclosures, etc. Is that kind of how, if you look at a four-year cycle, the office's work would go when it came to a cycle?

P. Fraser: Yes, exactly. As a result of the last election, I think 32 members were new and so were facing what we require from them for the first time. That meant that our time was taken up intensively in doing that, both with respect to people as individuals but also with respect to the caucuses as a whole.

This time around we spoke to both caucuses, and I think that was helpful. And we took one other step. We were more active and have been more active in helping constituency assistants and other people who are likely, in the scheme of things, to be asked to give support to their members. That's one cycle.

Then every year, of course, there's the disclosure cycle. And because the act requires that the disclosure take place within 60 days of the election, in order to get the members up to speed for the first disclosure, it's a particular effort — especially when there was a large number of them. So that's the cycle. Otherwise, it's pretty predictable.

It helps, if I may say so, in terms of contacting people and logistics, if there's a fall session. This year we were very fortunate because most of you, I think, did your disclosures in our office here. We've shut down the satellite office that we used to have in Surrey, although some of you, I know, yearn to go back to Surrey, so we made a special trip there.
[ Page 1332 ]

The disclosure process is about to finish, and every year that's sort of a rush. It's a lot of work. It has to be done well and carefully, and we need and we get, fortunately, the members' cooperation, and we're grateful for it.

D. Ashton (Chair): Paul, if that yearning starts again from some of those members, tell them they can look after it in Victoria. You don't need to go to Surrey anymore.

Just a quick question, if you don't mind, on professional services, outside help. Now, with the new 0.6 — is that what I saw? — of somebody with a legal background, will that start pulling that down a bit?

D. Ashton (Chair): I'm looking at the past numbers. I'm just trying to project it forward.

P. Fraser: Projecting forward, that person has always been on contract at that level, so her involvement has always been there.But the fact that she is a permanent employee now at 0.6 meant that if we were at any risk of losing her, we've been able to retain her and keep her on side. What we haven't had to do this year is to do anything out of house in terms of getting our work done in terms of inquiries. We were able to do that inside the office.

Sir, thank you very much. I got you finished before you were supposed to start, so that's not bad today.

P. Fraser: I attended a service the other day where a gentleman much older than myself and any of you said that he had reached an age in his life where his memory was becoming difficult. But there was a great advantage, he said: "I can plan my own surprise birthday party and still be surprised."

D. Ashton (Chair): Well, thank you, sir. Linda, nice to see you. Thank you very much for coming. Thanks. Enjoy your evening.

To the committee, we're back tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock. Does the committee wish to have any further discussion tonight, or do we want to get these underneath our belt and then have a quick discussion on the direction that we want to go?

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

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES