Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — Issue No. 3

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Present: Don McRae, MLA (Chair); Doug Routley, MLA (Deputy Chair); Kathy Corrigan, MLA; David Eby, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Sam Sullivan, MLA; John Yap, MLA

4. Resolved, that the Committee adopt the business plan as presented today. (Doug Routley, MLA)

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
REVIEW THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT


CONTENTS
Page
Committee Terms of Reference	15
Draft Business Plan and Hearing Schedule	15
Draft Preliminary Witness List	17
Other Business	18

D. McRae (Chair): Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, to the noonhour sitting of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I would trust that everybody has a copy of the agenda. If there are any questions, of course, as we go through, we’ll deal with it.

D. McRae (Chair): If I can just turn your attention to agenda item 1, review of the committee’s terms of reference. As some of you know from experience — well, some of you know from the reading — we are called together by an act of the Legislature every six years. The terms are laid out by the Legislature.

If there are questions or concerns or comments that people wish to make in regards to the terms of reference…. We don’t need to adopt them at this stage, obviously. They’re just telling us what they are. But if you have a lot of questions or concerns, it’s a good time to raise them. So if I can open the discussion if necessary.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Only to note that we have a year from the adoption of the terms of reference. The terms of reference were adopted on May 27. So we have until May 27, 2016, to report back to the House.

D. McRae (Chair): Well, looking around the table, I’m seeing no great conversation as to the terms of reference. That being said, I didn’t expect it either. But if you have a question later on, by all means, please do so. Ask any time.

D. McRae (Chair): As well, could we then turn our attention to item 2, review of the committee’s draft business plan and scheduling hearings.

You’ll notice there are some broad…. Well, I guess the first thing is we can just flip to this second full page, where it says: “Preliminary Timeline.” What it is right now is preliminary. We have also passed around a second page that would supplement that, as well, with some potential dates.

I am working from the assumption — though I have no special knowledge — that we will probably have a fall sitting of the Legislature. For the ease of committee members, if such happens — if we’re all in Victoria for an extended period of time — in the two months that it would normally be scheduled, we could try to do as many of the meetings there, since we’re already gathered.

If there is no fall sitting of the Legislature, we will still have the hearings. We’ll just have to come from wherever we are. But I think we’ll assume one and plan for the other, just in case.

I also would like to, whether you think about it at this time…. There are some dates that we’re putting in there. If there are dates that are absolutely…. Nothing is set in stone yet, but I’m a big family-first guy. If there’s a really important family commitment or personal commitment, if you can let us know before we solidify anything. I’d like to be able to have that sort of flexibility in our schedule that allows individuals to deal with probably the most important parts of their lives, if necessary.

Actually, maybe if I can steal Susan. Because you’ve actually put this all together, you know it more intimately than anybody. Do you want to make some comments on this one?

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Sure. A couple of things to mention to members. In the draft business plan we’ve set out sort of the different stages of the committee’s work as well as put together a preliminary budget based on…. If we’re meeting in Victoria and the House is in session, there are no costs or minimal costs. If we’re meeting in Victoria and the House is not in session, then, yes, there is a cost, which is why there’s that variable of about $20,000 in the budget.

You’ll notice, as well, that in November there is a conference, Privacy and Access 20/20. It’s being held in Vancouver this year. It’s up to the committee if they wanted to send representation such as, for example, the Chair and Deputy Chair and the researcher. Or if all members want to go, it’s entirely up to the committee. We’ve budgeted that out as well, including registration, assuming accommodation and transportation and so on. That would be up to committee members.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Yes. It’s right after Remembrance Day. It’s November 12 and 13, during break week.

One thing I was trying to do with the draft schedule, or options, is to keep in mind that we have two members on the committee that are also on the Finance Committee. I was trying to avoid dates when Finance might be meeting, which is why we have these Tuesday mornings, Thursday mornings and then Fridays — and possibly December in Vancouver or Victoria. It all turns on members’ availability and, I guess, as well, the response we get in terms of the call for public hearings and requests to appear.

We did put together, as well, a list of possible expert witnesses that the committee could invite. So it all turns on committee members’ desire to hold meetings either here
[ Page 16 ]
or Vancouver. The other option we can do, of course, is video conference for other communities, if members wish.

K. Corrigan: I wasn’t on this committee last time. I’m just wondering: how much interest was there last time? Was there a fair number of hearings?

E. Foster: I do. I was there. I was on the committee. I was surprised, actually.

Interestingly enough, there were a lot of people that made presentations. The only explanation I could have is that they needed to sort of tell their stories, and that seemed to be the spot to do it. It didn’t really relate to what we were doing, but I guess it was close enough. There were organizations. A lot of organizations presented and then a fair number of individuals with their personal issues that they had. It was interesting.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): I have the stats here, actually. In 2010 we had two public hearings, one in Vancouver and one in Victoria. We had 22 presenters at those two public hearings and 118 written submissions.

The time before that, which was 2003-2004, again, there were 22 presenters, and we had two hearings, one in Vancouver and one in Victoria. We had scheduled a hearing in Kelowna and scheduled a hearing in Prince George, but they were cancelled due to lack of registrants. We had 50 written submissions. So it does vary.

E. Foster: Do you have a breakdown on who…? I’d be curious to know if it was the same organizations that presented in ’04 and ’10.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Eric, I don’t have that with me. I can get that to you. I have a list of organizations from 2010, but I don’t have the list of organizations from 2004.

D. McRae (Chair): Maybe the individuals are slightly different, but you’re right.

I don’t know what the committee’s mood is on some video conferencing. I do like the idea of actually having people who live, especially, in the corners of the province who may wish to, again, either tell their story or make a submission that way.

Susan has estimated it’s about $3,000 to schedule a video conference, which will require us to, obviously, be available in Victoria, and the individual to…. We’d have to book an appropriate location in the said community. But it does give people a chance to speak when they can’t get that face-to-face conversation.

I think far corners. I think either Peace River, Prince George or the Kootenays or northwest B.C. Even if we only did it for two hours per site, if there’s any interest at all, it might be nice to have that sort of presence for individuals. Thoughts on that?

D. Eby: It sounds a lot cheaper than flying us around to these places and also provides a lot of access. Could people access it through their Internet connections at home, or is it that they’d have to go to a video conference centre?

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): We’re working with systems and Hansard, I think, to see if…. A year ago we looked into using Skype, and at that time it wasn’t possible. Now they think that we may be able to use it, in which case people could be at home and use Skype, but we haven’t tested it yet. We’re hoping that maybe in the Finance Committee we’ll do a trial, and then we’ll be able to start using it with other committees.

D. McRae (Chair): And they can do a video submission if they wanted, nonetheless, but they wouldn’t have the face-to-face interaction.

If we were to say, maybe, the vice-Chair and myself could sit and have a conversation with the Clerk’s office and see if there are two or three locations, and if you guys can give some input as to communities that would be, probably, well served? I think places like, maybe, Nelson in the Kootenays might have a hub area, and then the west coast.

Not to answer now, but if you guys are okay with tasking us with having that conversation and setting it up, that’d be great.

E. Foster: It’s certainly been effective with the Finance Committee. We’ve had an opportunity to hear from a lot of areas. You’re not popping up and down on a plane all the time with not enough time to do it. It’s been good.

K. Corrigan: When you’re talking about having certain areas, you’re saying that then you would have a video conferencing centre and use that, but another possible option would be people also being able to communicate with us via their own and not having to go anywhere? Okay. Sounds good.

S. Sullivan: Just to note that October 29 is a problem for me if it’s in Victoria.

J. Yap: Susan, do we do advertising like we do in the Finance Committee — put the word out that this committee is inviting submissions?
[ Page 17 ]

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Yes. We’ll prepare the website. We’ll launch the website. People can submit a submission through the website, get information on the locations, the timing, and then we’ll also issue a media advisory with quotes from the Chair and Deputy Chair, and an ad, and we’ll take registrants. They’ll call in to register.

The other thing we would like to do as well is send invitations to stakeholders — for example, the groups that presented last time or the time before.

Another thought we had. We’d have to consult with the ministry and the Information and Privacy Commissioner, but if they would distribute our ad to their stakeholders as well.

J. Yap: They have a website too, so maybe it can be a link on their website as well. That is another way to get the word out.

D. McRae (Chair): Would you guys also be okay with pondering over the weekend if there are personal or professional obligations that you know will have some potential for conflict on the dates that we’ve sort of suggested there? Then Doug and I can sit with Susan and next Monday or so just get those dates hammered out so the advertising can be sent out — and, at the same time, be respectful of committee members and their obligations as well.

J. Yap: Following up further on getting the word out, I know we have a Twitter account for the Finance Committee. Have you given some thought to one for this committee?

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Actually, we did that. I think it was Local Elections, where we changed the Finance account to be a committee account so that we can tweet. I’ll have to check on this, but yes, we can tweet.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): I think so. I will double-check, but I think that’s what we did. We switched it so that it could cover all committees, and we also have our Facebook page as well.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Yes. And we will also buy advertising on Facebook.

K. Corrigan: On the issue of location…. I don’t know if you’re planning on talking about that. For some of the meetings, particularly where stakeholders are involved, are we planning on doing both locations, or are we going to kind of prioritize one location or another? I’m not thinking of just the public hearings, because there may be very few and it’s obvious we’ll be in Victoria and Vancouver, but we have some ability to determine where stakeholders meetings are. Or are we just going to say Vancouver and Victoria, depending on the interest?

K. Corrigan: Well, stakeholder meetings. We’re going to invite people, right? So are we going to say…? I guess we’ll just see what the interest is. I’m thinking that the majority of us are in the Vancouver area. I mean, as opposed to Victoria-centred. I’m saying the easiest place to get through….

K. Corrigan: No, I know. We’re not the majority from Vancouver, but that might be easier. It may be irrelevant.

D. McRae (Chair): For me on the Island, it’s still easier for me to get to Vancouver. It’s just a three-hour drive or 45-minute flight. I can’t speak for Doug. I think the experts could probably choose where they wish to come as well to some degree. So if we’re okay with that?

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Once we determine dates…. We can sort of pick one date or a few dates in Victoria and a few dates in Vancouver and then offer the expert witnesses or the stakeholders a choice — do you want to appear in Vancouver, or do you want to appear in Victoria?

D. McRae (Chair): Are there any questions about the budget estimate? I think, again, Susan did a good job explaining why there is a bit of fluctuation in its cost, depending on whether we sit or not. But are there any questions on the budget estimate? No. Okay.

As to the dates, you guys are comfortable with the Deputy Chair, myself and the Clerk working together to make sure, subject to you folks getting your potential conflict dates to us? Everybody is comfortable with that? Okay.

Any other questions in regards to the business plan? I do need a motion to adopt, if I could be so bold. Moved by Doug. Seconded by John.

D. McRae (Chair): Moving on to the third item: review of the draft expert witness list. You’ll see that distributed as well.

I know gentlemen… Like Doug and Eric, who were here last time, some of these faces I think we’ve met be-
[ Page 18 ]
fore on the last tour. I think Susan has put this together based on slight changes in people’s professions, but the organizations are similar, so this is sort of based on what we did last time. However, if there are other names that need to be added or considered at least, I think that’s something we could either think about now or as we go through the system.

E. Foster: I’m sure you just mentioned this. I don’t multi-task very well. I can either read or listen.

I recognize a lot of the names on the list. Did we just generally pull it from the last group, or do we have some others on there that are new?

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Most of them were taken from the…. I think 2004 was last time the committee invited expert witnesses. But then we’ve also added some more recent names, including Public Guardian and Trustee and David Loukidelis and Jennifer Stoddart.

E. Foster: Quite a few of those names, I think, were on the witness list the last time.

D. Eby: Chair, there are a couple of names I can think of. I wonder if I could approach them and talk to them and then maybe write to the Clerk or to you with those names at a later date, if that would be appropriate.

D. McRae (Chair): Sure. By all means. And you might double check, too, with those individuals. When you look at the last report, I think the list of people who attended is in the back. They might have attended whether they were considered expert or not.

Now, my favourite part of the agenda is the fourth item on the agenda, which is any other business.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Sorry. Just a follow-up from this morning’s meeting, because committee members didn’t get an opportunity to ask questions of the ministry. If you do have questions that you would like the ministry to follow up with, please send them to me, possibly copying the Chair and Deputy Chair, by — when? — the end of July, beginning of August. What works for members?

D. McRae (Chair): I would say by the end of next week, just to tie it up. I think if questions are there, people would have them now. You know, to think about them for three more weeks, they might be forgotten.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Okay. So I’d say end of next week, and then we will compile them and send them to the ministry. The ministry will get back to us or answer them when they appear in the fall.

D. McRae (Chair): Then we go to the “Any other business” item on the agenda. Is there any other business?

The Deputy Chair and myself will touch base, perhaps, with Susan at our time convenience on Monday. We’re meeting as well on Tuesday morning at 8:30, I would assume, in the Douglas Fir Room. That will be with the Privacy Commissioner, I believe. Again, we’ll have about an hour there and hopefully have a bit more time for a Q and A at the end of it.

After that, we’ll allow the Clerk to go forward and advertise with some set dates to get ready for October and November.

S. Sourial (Committee Clerk): Sorry, one last thing that I should mention. In your package you’ll see some background materials prepared by Helen, our committee research analyst. If there are any other materials or background information that committee members feel would be helpful, please let us know. We can put things together for you.

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:	Don McRae (Comox Valley BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Doug Routley (Nanaimo–North Cowichan NDP)
Members:	Kathy Corrigan (Burnaby–Deer Lake NDP)
	David Eby (Vancouver–Point Grey NDP)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Sam Sullivan (Vancouver–False Creek BC Liberal)
	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Susan Sourial

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO
REVIEW THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT