Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 96 — Wednesday, May 18, 2016 (HTML)

Present: Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dan Ashton, MLA; Robin Austin, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Jennifer Rice, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA; John Yap, MLA

2. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions regarding financial and operational updates.

• Jay Fedorak, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Commissioner, Investigation & Mediation

3. The Committee reviewed correspondence from Richard J. M. Fyfe, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General Deputy Minister, Justice, dated May 12, 2016 regarding the Representative for Children and Youth permanency and adoption work.

4. The Committee discussed preliminary plans regarding its 2016 budget consultation process.

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	2191
E. Denham
J. Fedorak
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth: Supplementary Funding Request	2194
Committee Meeting Schedule	2195
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth: Supplementary Funding Request	2196

C. James (Deputy Chair): Welcome and good morning, everyone. If you could take a look at the agenda in front of you. Members will know that this is, I think, our last independent officer appearance. You will remember we set the agenda for all the independent officers to appear before we got into budget discussions for the following year.

The one piece that I’d suggest is a follow-up from our last meeting, when we talked about continuing the dialogue with the children’s representative and the government, the Ministry of Children and Families. I think we should just do a quick update if we’ve got time at the end of the meeting.

I’d like to welcome, for her last appearance in front of our committee, Elizabeth Denham. Elizabeth, I’ll get you to introduce the folks who are with you. I know we’re losing you to England, to the U.K., and we want to express our appreciation for the work that we’ve done with you, as well, and our thanks from the committee to you and your office for the work.

E. Denham: First I have to learn the expressions, so that’s going to take some work.

E. Denham: Good morning, everyone. With me today are Jay Fedorak, who is assistant commissioner and deputy registrar, and also Michael McEvoy, who’s our deputy commissioner.

It’s really with mixed feelings that I appear before you today. I’m really pleased to continue the progress that we began last year by doing a midyear update on the work of our office, but I regret that this will be my final appearance before this committee.

I have about ten to 15 minutes of prepared remarks, and then we can move on to questions. I’d like to start with a budget update, follow it by a summary of the progress that has been made on my office’s key priorities, which we set out for you in our November 2015 presentation, and then I’m going to close with just a brief update of some of the files that are on my desk.

Starting with the budget numbers, I’m pleased to report that our office stayed within its budget for the 2015-16 fiscal year. We ended the year with a surplus of $12,000. Our total budget is about $5.6 million so that means we spent 99.8 percent of our budget — can’t get much closer than that.

In my presentation to you in November, I requested funding to cover unavoidable increases, plus I asked for an additional investigator and an additional adjudicator. I’d like to thank the committee for supporting this request.

We’re in the early stages of forecasting expenditures for fiscal 2016-17, and I don’t anticipate any major budget changes or funding issues based on what we know today. But later in my speech, I’m going to be tabling a future budgetary issue, and it involves costs associated with my office assuming secretariat function for the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities, beginning in July of 2016.

Turning now to progress on our service plan priorities, the office is working hard to keep up with an ever-increasing workload and to deliver timely services to citizens, to public bodies and to private sector organizations.

The committee asked me to report back on the progress that we make with our new resources. I’d just like to preface this by pointing out that we’ve only had these resources since the beginning of the new fiscal in April. Moreover, we’ve had a few staff depart since November, and we’ve only recently replaced them.

I’m pleased to report that these additional staff are now working hard on our caseload backlog. You will remember that in November I talked to you quite extensively about our backlog numbers and plans we had to reduce that. I’m going to put that into perspective for you now.

On May 11, 2015, I reported to you that our investigation backlog was in excess of 300 files. Those are complaints that come in that have to sit in a queue and that are not yet assigned to an investigator. This backlog has now been reduced to 245 files, and that’s roughly a 20 percent reduction, but during this same period, the office opened 1,500 new investigation files, which is an increase of more than 300 files, compared to the previous year. In other words, despite a 27 percent increase in complaints, we still managed to reduce the backlog by 20 percent.

This progress is the direct result of our continuous improvement project. That project is a light, lean project designed to streamline our processes and improve services to citizens by closing more files faster.

We’ve made some important administrative changes in our office. We relieved our intake officers of front-desk responsibilities, freeing them up to resolve early some files without assigning those files to an investigator. We’ve
[ Page 2192 ]
also capped the number of active files that any one individual can have at any one time.

We’ve developed benchmarks for investigators, and these performance measures are also helping us close more files faster. Staff can self-monitor their work, and managers can also more easily evaluate their progress.

I’m pleased to report that these initiatives are already helping to improve our timeliness as well. In the past six months, we closed 71 percent of complaints and reviews within 90 days, as compared to 64 percent a year ago. Since November 2015, we’ve reduced the waiting time for a file to be assigned to an investigator from 24 weeks to 21 weeks.

The adjudication backlog has also declined from 98 inquiries in 2013-14 to 75 in 2015. That’s a reduction of 23 percent. Meanwhile, the productivity of the adjudicators has gone up. The number of orders issued over the same two-year period jumped from 38 to 81, which is a 113 percent increase.

Turning now to the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists. We’ve made good progress on two of our major priorities in the ORL service plan. We’ve increased the enforcement of the Lobbyist Registration Act, and we’ve increased our public education and outreach.

Our enforcement activities fulfill the intent of the Legislature that the obligation to register lobbying activities be upheld accurately and on time. In 2015-16, my office completed 175 compliance reviews. These are reviews of a lobbyist’s activities identified either through a complaint, an inquiry, a review of a return or an environmental scan by our staff.

In 2015-16, we completed 14 formal investigations, 13 of which resulted in findings of non-compliance, with fines levied against lobbyists totalling $12,350. An investigation that comes to a finding of non-compliance must be made public, and 13 investigation reports were tabled in the Legislative Assembly in the last fiscal year.

Turning now to public education. Since my last appearance, here’s what we’ve done. We’ve issued clear and practical guidance for registered and active lobbyists to explain how the law works and, also, practical tips on how to stay compliant. We hosted a conference in Vancouver for lobbyists with sessions on current trends, the future of lobbying, how to lobby effectively and how to stay compliant with the legislation.

Next, I wanted to inform you of an exciting new development in the relationship between my office and our partners in the Pacific Rim. We are a member of the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities, which is the principle forum for privacy and data protection commissioners across the Asia-Pacific region. Within that forum, we develop partnerships, we have staff exchanges, and we exchange ideas about privacy regulation, new technologies and the management of privacy complaints.

From the perspective of businesses operating throughout the world, consistency of approaches by privacy regulators across jurisdictions is important to enhance commercial certainty and efficiency. To properly protect and regulate these data flows, we have to work together with our fellow regulators, whether it’s to share best practices or, in some instances, engage in joint enforcement work.

Everyone on this committee is well aware how crucial B.C.’s economic, commercial and political ties are with the Asia-Pacific. Our office has already established a leadership role in many APPA initiatives with regulators in Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Mexico.

The administration of APPA is driven by a secretariat, which rotates on three-year terms between major member jurisdictions. My office is honoured to take on this important responsibility in July of 2016. The secretariat function will help us leverage our influence and further increase the profile of our province.

This new role will temporarily place additional financial burdens on our office. Our predecessor, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, identified that the expense to their office was roughly, all together, one FTE or about $75,000.

I’m just tabling this issue for you at this time. I’m not asking for additional funding. We’re hoping to be able to cover the costs incurred this year, but I anticipate that the office will put in a request in November for the next two years of our secretariat term. In the event that there are unanticipated cost pressures that affect the ability of the OIPC to absorb the costs, my successor may present a request to this committee during the budget presentation.

Just before turning to questions, I’d like to briefly review some of the OIPC’s upcoming work — active files on my desk. I will shortly be releasing an audit of how the city of Vancouver is meeting its duty to assist applicants in responding to freedom-of-information requests under FIPPA. The audit measures the extent to which the city is responding openly, accurately and without delay. It involves a review of communications to applicants and how the city applies exceptions to disclosure when withholding information.

We selected the city of Vancouver because we’ve already examined the provincial government. We’ve already examined health authorities. Vancouver is the largest municipality and receives the highest number of access requests of any local public body. I anticipate that the report will include recommendations to improve services to citizens that will have a cascading effect to other local public bodies.

There are a few other files that I hope to complete before the end of my term on July 5. They include an investigation into the handling of water quality advisory warning in the township of Spallumcheen. They include an inquiry into the possible use of StingRay devices by the Vancouver police department and also a joint audit
[ Page 2193 ]
with the Auditor General on how the government manages privacy and security of mobile devices. In addition, I will be tabling annual reports for the ORL and the OIPC.

Thanks for your attention this morning and for providing me with the opportunity to report to the committee outside the budget cycle. I think it’s a very good process.

I also wanted to thank the committee for all of the support that you’ve given my office over the last six years. I’ve always tried to keep my budget requests modest and fiscally responsible, but the work of the office has really grown over the past six years, owing to decisions of government or demands of citizens. I always appreciated the assistance of the committee in enabling my office to address this increased workload.

As my term comes to a close, I’m really proud of the work that we’ve been able to achieve. I consider the success of my office the result of a team effort, and I would like to recognize my amazing, remarkable staff; my wise external advisory board; our engaged stakeholders; as well as the support and cooperation of the government, the official opposition and, especially, the members of this committee. All of your contributions were absolutely vital to our success.

I will close there and take any questions that you may have. Thank you, Madam Chair.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Great. Thank you so much, Elizabeth. You leave very big shoes to fill for anyone coming in. We appreciate your work as well.

R. Austin: I’m new to the committee, so forgive me if I’m asking a question that you’ve already discussed before.

You mentioned that you levied fines of…. Did you say between $12,000 and $13,000? Is that correct?

E. Denham: That’s the total amount of fines and sanctions that we issued to lobbyists who were found to be in contravention of the act.

R. Austin: Again, knowing that I’m new to this committee, that seems like peanuts.

R. Austin: Exactly. Who decides the levels of the fines? If people are being paid tens of thousands of dollars to lobby, then get caught or contravene the act and then get a fine of, essentially, a parking ticket, there’s not much disincentive to actually follow the law.

E. Denham: The maximum fines in the statute, the maximum amount that we can fine anyone, is $25,000. So there is a ceiling.

The fining power is fairly new to the office. For the first two years of these new administrative monetary penalties, we focused on education. We did a lot of education. We wanted to make sure that everybody understood the rules. We only started the enforcement about three years ago.

There’s a scale. We have to be proportional to the issue at hand. We started at about a $500 fine, and we’re up to…. I’m going to turn to Jay. Our maximum fine….

J. Fedorak: The maximum fine for combined contraventions was, I believe, around $3,000. That was a number of contraventions combined. For a single contravention, I think we’re looking at about $1,500.

R. Austin: I take it, then, your investigation found out that these are fairly minor contraventions of the act. Is that correct?

E. Denham: We’ve found it to be relatively minor to date. If we found a lobbyist who had been lobbying for a year or two years, completely ignoring the regime, then we would have a more significant fine. We’ve started with, really, an education focus, giving people three chances — three tries, you’re out. But we did warn the community that we were going to be stepping up the fines, because it’s been almost six years now, and we feel that people should know the law and should comply with the law.

E. Foster: Following up on the fine, if you find someone in contravention and you levy a fine, what’s their recourse? Do they have an opportunity to go to court?

E. Denham: In first instance, an investigator in our office will write a report and, if there’s a finding of contravention of the law, will recommend a certain level of fine. That individual has the opportunity for a reconsideration, and as the registrar of lobbyists, I will take the reconsideration. I have written five, six, seven reconsiderations. There have been times when I have reduced the fine. There were times where I disagreed with the investigator.

Also, my decisions are appealable on judicial review. So there are steps along the way. No lobbyist has sought judicial review to the courts of my reconsideration.

We do have a wall in our office where the investigator does the work. The investigator levies the initial fine. That’s not made public. The lobbyist has the ability to ask for a reconsideration on certain grounds, and I write that report.

E. Foster: Then they do have the option, if they don’t agree, to take it to a judge.

S. Gibson: I have two quick questions. This FTE, this person is going to be coordinating with Pacific Rim. What will be the benefit to us for that membership and that year-long chair of this committee? What will be the benefit to our government?

E. Denham: I think because British Columbia is a Pacific Rim economy and because we have trade relationships with those same countries that are members of the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities, it’s helpful for us to work in the best way possible to harmonize our regulatory approaches. Really, I’m talking about private sector companies that are operating throughout the Pacific Rim. Just like other regulatory authorities, they coordinate, meet, share best practices. I think there is an advantage to British Columbia being an active member of that forum.

It’s not a lot of resources, and as I said, we can absorb the resources this year. But I can’t bind my successor to find the resources in the same way, not knowing what his or her priorities would be. I’m just tabling it so the committee knows that we’ve taken on this role starting in July.

S. Gibson: My second question may be a bit more philosophical. I’ve worked with students a lot over the years. My sense is that they believe that privacy is really past tense — that everything is available if you go looking for it.

Your file, perhaps more than any other, is a moving target. Can you just share a little bit about what you think the future is of your responsibility for government because a lot of it is being contested every day — just the validity, or real reason for privacy, is being contested by young people today who think there really is no privacy anymore.

E. Denham: I think when we talk to young people today, they may not talk about privacy in the same way that we do. But I think if you look at the academic literature, if you look at focus groups that we’ve had with young people, they care very much about their privacy, especially when they get to a certain age, and they start applying for jobs, and they start trying to get into universities, and they worry about the digital profile and digital footprint that they left behind when they were younger.

I think a lot of us on this committee, around the table here in this meeting, are fortunate that there wasn’t social media when we were doing stupid human tricks when we were younger.

I think it’s a lot more complicated and nuanced than just: “Young people don’t care about privacy, because they post things on line.” They do hide things on line. They’re not thinking about law enforcement. At age 14, they’re not thinking about hiding things from future employers. They’re thinking about hiding things from their parents, from their older siblings, and they have a lot of ways to work around where their parents and their teachers think they can find out what they’re doing on line.

With Internet technologies and with trade and with the long arm of foreign governments getting access to information, I think the privacy file is hotter than ever. There’s a new regulation that has just come in for all of Europe. The general data protection regulation will apply all through Europe, and it’s the strongest high-water mark that I’ve ever seen — than anyone has ever seen — for privacy.

I think the stakes are larger. I think you’re right that the demographic attitudes are shifting. But I don’t think we’ve even sorted out what’s at stake, especially for what kids do on line.

I could go on for an hour or two on this topic, but thank you for asking the question. I think we’re going be relevant.

Thank you so much, Elizabeth. Thank you for your work, and thank you for your contribution to our province as well. We look forward to, I’m sure, seeing your name in the bigger, wider discussion around information and privacy.

Follow-up business. We have one item, but we also have Susan, who wants to talk to us quickly about the travel for the fall. Maybe we can do the follow up on the discussion with the Ministry for Children and Families and the Representative for Children and Youth.

Office of the Representative
for Children and Youth:
Supplementary Funding Request

C. James (Deputy Chair): The committee will remember we finished off our discussions last meeting with a request that we look at continuing the dialogue with the representative and the ministry and having a further conversation.

I wanted to ask Kate whether we’ve done any follow-up and then just get any further direction from the committee.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): I did have an opportunity to touch base briefly with the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, and I drew their attention to the transcript from
[ Page 2195 ]
your committee meeting last week on May 10, in which the committee did not approve a supplementary funding request at this time for the adoption advocacy proposal but did adopt a motion, as you recall, to invite the representative and either the Minister of Children and Family Development or designated officials from that department to continue dialogue and to provide further information in due course to your committee.

Since that time, the office had received, on Monday, a letter from Richard Fyfe. It was copied to the Deputy Chair as well as the Chair of your committee and the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Children and Youth Committee.

I have print copies of it now. It does provide some extra information with respect to ongoing consideration of requests related to the adoption proposal. As well, it references ongoing work by the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth with respect to a statutory review of the representative’s act.

There is an expectation that committee will begin its work this calendar year. As the letter from Mr. Fyfe outlines, it may help to refine some clarity around the role of the representative going forward and her mandate.

For the information of the members this morning, I do have print copies, which I’ll circulate now.

We have a motion which asks them to come back to the committee for dialogue. We’ll book that meeting.

E. Foster: Just that we have a look at this and see what direction that gives us or what suggestions it makes. It might give us a direction.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Okay. Maybe I can ask Susan to just give us an update on the fall, while people take a look at the letter as well. Then we’ll just see if there’s anything to close off.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations): Good morning, Members.

Getting closer to that time again — the budget consultations in the fall. I believe I had circulated a potential draft schedule with, at least, the locations and the travel weeks. That had been, in essence, preapproved by the Chair and Deputy Chair. As there were some and-ors on that schedule, I wanted to confirm them with committee members. I have hard copies, if members would like.

The travel weeks. The budget consultation paper must be tabled by the 15th of September, pursuant to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. That falls on a Thursday this year. We’ll probably have the one day of hearing on that Thursday when the minister, hopefully, appears, if he’s available, and then start the travel Monday, September 19. The committee would travel four days that week.

The following week is UBCM week, so there’s no travel that week. Then the committee would travel the week of October 3 for four days. Then it’s Thanksgiving weekend, and the committee would travel three days, the Tuesday to the Thursday, after Thanksgiving. There are three weeks of travel, but broken up.

The deadline for submissions would be Friday, October 15. The report would have to be tabled by the 15th of November.

I’ve listed some proposed communities. I know there’s been some discussion amongst members — for example, whether Terrace or Prince Rupert. That’s what I wanted to get feedback on from committee members.

E. Foster: I think, last year, did we not have a meeting on the Monday of the UBCM? Although we were in Vancouver….

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): I don’t know if we did it last year. There was one year where we did.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): Certainly, if members would like that, we can arrange for a meeting in Vancouver.

E. Foster: And we’re planning to go to Victoria. I throw that out because it might help us out on a day, anyway.

C. James (Deputy Chair): It’s a good suggestion to take a look and see whether we can do a Victoria hearing that day.

Feedback on the options that are listed here? Travel really isn’t up for discussion. All those people who want to say less know.

S. Sourial (Clerk Assistant): I have not heard that there is going to be a session, but last year was a surprise. Anything can happen. This is based on the House not sitting. However, as we did last year, we will adapt if the House does sit.

E. Foster: In the northwest, you’d speak to Terrace or Rupert. This is my fourth year, I guess, God help me.
[ Page 2196 ]
On every occasion, we’ve had issues getting in or out of Rupert, but we always seem to be able to get into Terrace.

E. Foster: No, we got into Terrace. We’d get into Terrace, and we’d bus to Rupert and bus back to get out. We did. That must have been two years ago. We flew into Terrace at nine o’clock at night. We got into two vans and drove to Prince Rupert. We did our thing there in the morning….

R. Austin: The only time that there’s difficulty getting into Terrace is really in the worst months of winter, but not in September or October. You always get in, in September or October.

R. Austin: I’m biased, but obviously, if you’re going to the northwest, Terrace is much more central for all the northwest communities than Prince Rupert. I’ll let the person from Prince Rupert speak up about that. It’s a simple matter of geography. It’s not a question of debate here, I wouldn’t have thought.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Go ahead, Jennifer. If we’ve allowed self-interest here, you feel free.

J. Rice: Well, I guess Rupert is at the end of the highway, but all the more reason to go and visit it and hear the…. Well, Haida Gwaii is actually at the end of the highway, but I mean, I just feel like that’s no reason not to go.

S. Gibson: Well, last year I think we did Mission as the Fraser Valley one. Certainly, I’d put in a comment for Abbottsford, because Abbotsford is the fifth-largest community in B.C., and very central to that area — Chilliwack, Aldergrove, etc.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Any other feedback? Are people fine to leave it to the Chair and the vice-Chair and the Clerk of the committee.

C. James (Deputy Chair): That’s precisely the reason I was suggesting that it be left to the Chair and the vice-Chair and the Clerk.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Whatever works best with the travel schedule — does that make sense for folks?

C. James (Deputy Chair): Okay, that’s it. That’s enough of self-interest. Okay, so we will leave it to the Chair and the vice-Chair and the Clerk. We’ll look at what makes sense travel-wise.

Office of the Representative
for Children and Youth:
Supplementary Funding Request

C. James (Deputy Chair): Back to our follow-up on discussion with MCFD and the rep. Does anyone have any further feedback? At this point, we have a motion, which is that we’ll invite them to come back for discussion. Does that make sense?

J. Tegart: Just perusing the letter really quickly, it’s obvious that there is another process happening. I feel quite comfortable in letting that process go through and hearing back from the committee in regard to the review that is being proposed.

R. Austin: This was a very interesting discussion that we had last week on this topic. I sensed from the governing side that the main objection was what Mr. Fyfe has put, which is that he doesn’t think that the role of the RCY is to administer programs. I think that’s the main concern. Is that correct?

But I think if we were to hear from Ed John and from…. Ed John is also looking into the whole adoptions process and has been appointed by the government to sort of put another eye on the adoption process. If we were to listen to what Ed John has done in his review of adoptions, as well as the RCY, as well as MCFD, we could maybe resolve this.

I’m concerned that in constantly putting these things off, there are children sitting in not-forever homes while we discuss and worry about process endlessly. We have to figure out a way to have a discussion, an open discussion, that either allows the RCY to convince this committee and all of us — and the minister and the minister’s office — that her office would not be overstepping their role in terms of advocacy, or not.

I think we need to have that discussion here so we can actually get to the bottom of this — and sooner rather than later. Waiting for all of these committees to do
[ Page 2197 ]
their work just means that more children are staying in temporary homes, when the ultimate goal — expressed by everybody in this committee — is to try and find permanent homes for these children. That would be my comments.

G. Heyman: Robin basically said what I want to say. The review notwithstanding, which is in the mandate of the Representative for Children and Youth…. She believes — and I believe what I heard from the ministry when they were here was that they believe — that the proposal is within the current mandate.

In any event, I think that hearing from them, as we decided to do by motion in the last meeting, does no harm to anything. We’re going to have a discussion with them on an ongoing issue before us. That’s our role.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I got myself on the list, and I’d agree. I think it is important. I think the review of the act is going to take a long time. That’s not going to be a quick process. It’s not going to happen in a month. The committee is going to take their time, I expect, to review that.

I think that our motion to have the two parties, basically the ministry and the representative, come and address the questions that have come up — the valid questions around this project — I think makes sense. I think we should. I recognize it’s hard when the Legislature is not sitting, but I think sooner rather than later is the best approach.

Does anyone have any feedback, any changes? So we go with the motion, which is that we look at trying to find a date and invite the two parties to come. Yes? Okay.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is available on the Internet.

Chair:	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
	Robin Austin (Skeena NDP)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Jennifer Rice (North Coast NDP)
	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd
	Susan Sourial

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES