The committee met at 8:30 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Today we are having annual review of statutory offices in British Columbia, three-year rolling service plans, annual reports and budgetary estimates for fiscal 2019-2020.

First up we have the Office of the Merit Commissioner — Fiona Spencer.

Welcome. The floor is yours.

Review of Statutory Officers

OFFICE OF THE MERIT COMMISSIONER

F. Spencer: The floor is mine. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Thanks, as always, for this opportunity to appear before you and discuss the work of my office. I know that all of you know Dave Van Swieten, who is our executive director of corporate shared services for my office and three of my colleagues. As you know, you are going to get to see him for the rest of the morning and again tomorrow. You’ll have lots of time to ask him questions, if you like.

This morning I’d like to just give you a brief overview of the work of the Office of the Merit Commissioner in the last year, including actions taken with respect to implementing the additional responsibilities conferred upon my office from recent amendments to the Public Service Act and address budget expenditures and requirements.

You’ll note from the documentation provided that I’m requesting an additional $75,000 in the current fiscal year and an increase of $224,000 for the next fiscal year, $183,000 of which is to support the change to the office’s mandate.

Since 2006, the Merit Commissioner has been mandated to uphold fair hiring to and within the B.C. Public Service through audits of appointments and to be the final-level review of contested staffing decisions. In April 2018, through an amendment to the Public Service Act, the Merit Commissioner’s responsibilities were expanded to include the review of processes related to just cause dismissals.

We’re a small office of four full-time and two part-time staff and are assisted in our ongoing work by five auditors who work on a contract basis, as and when required. I serve as a part-time appointee.

With respect to merit performance audits, when I appeared before the committee in May, I spoke to the results of our merit performance audit for 2016-17. We recently concluded the audit of appointments for 2017-18 fiscal year, and our final report was deposited with the Speaker and distributed last week.

Appointment activity to and within the public service continues to increase. The rate of increase over the last four years has been over 10 percent a year. We take random samples of these appointments every quarter to audit a sufficient number to allow us to generalize our results of those audits to the broader public service. In 2017-18, this meant that we audited 259 appointments.

We looked at appointment processes to assess if the process designed and applied was merit-based and looked at the qualifications of the individuals appointed to determine if they met the qualifications of the position to which they were appointed. Given the trend toward larger hiring processes to encompass multiple appointments, this past year our random sampling resulted in the identification of ap­point­ments that were made from seven different inventories of candidates, which had a combined total of nearly 9,000 applicants.

Inventories consist of candidates who have undergone some degree of assessment and are considered prequalified for a specific position or a range of positions. In each case, this required an in-depth analysis of the entire inventory selection process, as possible errors made in the establishment of an inventory can have significant implications for future appointments.

The results of our audit show that with very few exceptions, individuals being appointed have the qualifications necessary for their positions. We found no evidence of patronage in any appointments. Overall, our findings with respect to appointment processes were consistent with past years. Fifty-seven percent of appointments audited had some form of error, some more consequential than others.

[8:35 a.m.]

Where we did find improvement was with respect to the number of errors found per audit. In the past, where we might have found issues with more than one aspect of a selection process, we are now finding that errors are generally confined to one part of a competition, an indication that there are process improvements being made throughout the public service.

The greatest risks merit-based hiring identified relate to fairness and consistency. The most frequently observed error in hiring was in the initial stage of the process called shortlisting, where a decision was made to either reduce or waive one or more of the qualifications that were posted as required. While such actions allow additional candidates to advance, it is a practice we consider unfair to other individuals, who may have applied had they known that the requirements to compete would be less than advertised.

A widespread issue was found at all stages of the selection process, where simple errors, such as transposing marks or addition errors, had adverse implications. And although infrequent, it was found that some applicants were granted special or preferential treatment.

Our audit also results in observations related to the quality of documentation prepared in support of hiring decisions. Improvement is needed in this area, as in almost one-third of cases, documentation was insufficient and required the auditor to rely on verbal evidence to conduct the audit.

Based on our findings and issues identified, we make recommendations for improvement to deputy ministers, organization heads and the B.C. Public Service Agency. The overall report, including these recommendations, was provided to the deputy minister of the agency prior to finalization, and she expressed her commitment to creating a more consistent, transparent and inclusive hiring system.

With respect to staffing reviews, as you may recall, unsuccessful employee applicants to bargaining unit positions have the right to request a review by the Merit Commissioner of the relevant appointment decision. This review is the third and final step in a review process, and my decisions are final and binding.

In 2017-18, we saw the highest number of requests for reviews since the establishment of the office, 25, which is double the average number over the last ten years. Of these, eight were ineligible, but I did conduct reviews of the remaining 17. In 13 of these cases, I upheld the deputy minister’s decision. However, in four cases, I directed reconsideration as one or more aspects of the selection process failed to meet the requirements of a merit-based process. This number also reflects a greater than average number of directed reconsiderations.

The number of requests the office receives in a year cannot be predicted, and we have not been able to identify a link to any particular event or set of circumstances. As the investigation and conduct of a staffing review is a time-sensitive matter, we give these reviews priority in order to render a decision within 30 days. As a result, we can face workload challenges, which require the occasional use of contracted resources to supplement the work of office staff.

As mentioned, in April 2018, the office’s mandate was changed to include responsibility for the oversight of processes related to just cause dismissals in the public service. To clarify, my responsibility is not to review dismissals that have occurred to determine if they were justified or supportable but to conduct an after-the-fact review of the processes and procedures followed to ensure that they were in keeping with government practice, procedures and standards.

Given that my review can only take place once all avenues of recourse have been exhausted or associated timelines have passed, a dismissal process would not become eligible for review until at least 12 months after the dismissal has occurred. As a result, I will not be conducting any reviews until April 2019 at the earliest.

The number of reviews I conduct will of course be dependent on the number of dismissals which may occur within a certain time frame. I have been advised that, historically, the average has been approximately 25 dismissals per year. We’ve used that estimate to assist with our planning and budgeting.

When I met with you in May, I advised that we would be engaged in planning for implementation and working to set up internal processes and systems. This work is progressing, and I am confident that we will be well prepared once dismissal files become eligible for review.

In May, I also advised that I would manage costs associated with this new mandate within my existing budget but that I would likely need access to additional funds before the end of the fiscal year. I have been doing that, but I am now predicting a deficit, based on expenditures to date and what we estimate will be required for the balance of the fiscal year. Taking into account any internal savings we’ve been able to achieve, I’m requesting an additional $75,000 be allocated to the Office of the Merit Commissioner for the current fiscal year.

[8:40 a.m.]

This will enable us to fulfil our mandate with respect to merit-based hiring and to be ready to commence the review of dismissal files in April 2019.

We have estimated costs related to the dismissal process review activity for next fiscal year to be $183,000. This includes one-time costs associated with the construction of an additional office space within our existing footprint, purchase of furniture and equipment and setup costs. It also includes funds to hire, on a contract basis, an individual with specialized expertise in labour relations, labour law matters to assist with the actual review of dismissal files on an as-and-when-required basis and salary costs commencing in the second half of the fiscal year for staff to support this work.

In summary, the costs associated with the change of the mandate represent the bulk of my budget request. The additional request for $41,000 for next fiscal year is to cover regular salary increases and increments and the cost of inflation related to building occupancy, amortization and shared services.

You will note that last year, expenditures for my office came within 2 percent of allocated funds. Therefore, the office’s capacity to absorb such incremental costs going forward is extremely limited.

In summary, the budget request for the Office of the Merit Commissioner is for additional funds in the amount of $75,000 for 2018-19 and $224,000 for 2019-20, and modest increases are requested for the next two subsequent fiscal years.

Thank you for your consideration. I’m happy to respond to any questions you might have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much, and thank you for all the work you’re doing, especially with the new role.

I was just wondering. I know you’ve gone through it, but could you tell us exactly what the $75,000 for this year, again, is for specifically? Is it for salary? I know you’ve said that, but I just would appreciate it if you could articulate that again.

F. Spencer: Yeah, that’s fine.

We’ve been spending money since May, when I first saw you, and we anticipate we’re going to continue to spend money in the next fiscal year. We’ve had some costs associated with salaries within the office because of added responsibilities and duties.

We have had to hire, on a contract basis, some folks to be able to help us with, basically, first of all, an environmental scan of other jurisdictions to validate, verify independently, authenticate whether or not the systems and processes that are in place in the B.C. public service are valid.

We’ve drafted internal administrative procedures and processes. We’ve hired expert legal advice to finalize methodologies for us for review processes and procedures. We hired a communications consultant to help us with a rebranding of our mandate, our website.

We’ve had to develop communications for ministries and that sort of thing. We have had to set up and test processes for transferring secure data. It’s mostly been, as I say, setup costs, and we’re anticipating that we’re going to have a little bit more of that, especially on the contracted resource front going forward.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Fantastic. That’s exactly what I was interested in hearing.

Before we go to general questions, would you mind maybe going through, on page 5 of 8 of the submission, each line item for us so that we can understand. It’s a significant ask, $224,000 for the next year. If we could go through each of those line items with some detail, that would be great.

F. Spencer: I want to make sure I’m referring to the same document.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Sorry. I’m looking at the budget submission, page 5 of 8.

F. Spencer: Thanks very much. Page 5 of 8. Okay.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Then there’s a change on each line item that results in the $224,000. I’m just wondering if you could just walk us through those.

F. Spencer: Right. Okay. I might get Dave to help me with some of these.

The first being salaries. With added responsibilities for dis­missal review, we’ve had to do some reallocation of re­spon­sibilities within my office. This has resulted in a change in some salary levels within the office, and we’re also looking to hire somebody to be focused on this activity but also support whatever person we’re hiring on a contract basis to do the actual reviews.

We’re thinking that for next fiscal year, we probably won’t be in a position to need to hire that person until about October, so we’re asking for a salary for half the FTE for that year. Then the following year, the person, of course, would be there full time if, in fact, needed.

[8:45 a.m.]

Benefits. The employee benefits are just attached to the salaries. That’s just a percentage calculation of salary costs. Some of these also include…. Sorry, I should say it’s not all related to the new mandate. Some of this also includes the inflationary costs that are associated with increments and changes to collective agreement provisions.

Professional services increase. This is an estimate based on what we think we may need in terms of, first of all, legal advice in setting up our processes and procedures and also in hiring the person with a labour law background to actually do the reviews of each dismissal process we’re looking at and prepare a report for us. That’s really, as I say, based on our understanding of how many we may have to look at in the next fiscal year. Also, some communications advice, I think, is built in there.

Information systems. Well, $2,000 — I think that’s just to update some technology. Office and business expenses — the same sort of thing. I don’t think there’s anything unusual in there. Is there, Dave? So the $6,000.

The $19,000 increase is for preparation of another report. We have to prepare another report that’s specifically focused on dismissal review processes, getting the advice and support to do that.

Utilities and supplies. I think that’s just inflation.

Building occupancy costs. Part of that, the $37,000 in building occupancy, includes the one-time costs of con­struct­ing walls within our existing footprint office space to build a separate office for the staff, the individuals, who are going to be supporting this and purchasing of furniture and equipment. Also, it includes, I think, an inflationary cost in there for building occupancy, a normal inflation amount for building occupancy.

Then other expenses. I don’t know. What is that, Dave?

D. Van Swieten: Other expenses is the portion for corporate shared services. It comes from a funding formula agreed to by the four offices. A portion of that covers the inflationary costs for corporate shared services. Under the model, if a new FTE is added to support by corporate shared services, there is a portion of funding that’s allocated to that for each new position.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great.

I don’t mean to hog the questions, everyone, but from what I gather, some of these issues are sort of ramping up. I’m just wondering. It seems like all of these changes carry forward to the next year. For example, the $75,000. You said that was legal advice. But then it’s the same amount the next year. I’m just wondering how…. Is that because the next year there’ll be a hire? I’m just trying to get an idea of why some of these line items seem to be…

F. Spencer: …carrying forward.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah, why they’re carrying forward.

F. Spencer: At this point, it’s just our best guess, based on what we understand has been historical practice and what we anticipate will be the cost. We don’t see it changing if the number of files we’re looking at stays constant. It could very well be that after the first year of going through this, we realize, first of all, that we don’t have as many files to look at in a year, and the cost of having the review conducted on an individual basis may be far less than what we’re anticipating.

We could come back to the committee at this time next year and say, “We realize that we’re not going to need that much,” and return those funds and readjust our estimates for coming years. But at this point, we don’t have…. This is just our best estimate, based on the information that we have. We don’t want to find ourselves without sufficient funds to conduct this appropriately.

B. D’Eith (Chair): All right. Questions from members?

M. Dean: Thanks for all the work and the report, and thank you for being within 2 percent of your budget. It takes a lot of skill and management to do that.

You answered a lot of my questions that I had already, but I’m still also interested in your occupation costs and the renovation costs as well. Do you know what percentage your occupancy costs went up by this year?

F. Spencer: This year? I’m going to have to ask Dave.

D. Van Swieten: I don’t have an exact figure for that, but we can find that out for you, if that’s an interest.

M. Dean: If that’s all right, Chair, I’d be interested. I’d also be interested in doing a comparison across all of the offices.

[8:50 a.m.]

F. Spencer: The renovation costs you wondered about?

M. Dean: Yes, I wondered: did you get a range of quotes?

F. Spencer: Yes, we have. As I said, what we’re looking at is not expanding our space but converting some of our space within our existing footprint, which means basically constructing walls, putting some ventilation into an office and doors and those kinds of things. I think we’re looking at $30,000 next year, if that’s, in fact, what we decide to do.

M. Dean: Did you get a range of quotes to inform that?

F. Spencer: Yes, we did. It’s part of what Dave’s facilities group does. They went out and sought…. They, first of all, had to have somebody draw up plans for whatever that was going to be and then went out and got quotes on that. That’s sort of in the mid-range.

M. Dean: Thank you.

N. Simons: Thank you very much. I appreciate the presentation.

My question has to do with the caseload and the workload, the additional work associated with reviewing the termination processes. There also seems to be a jump from ’16-17 to ’17-18 in the number of reviews of appointments from something like 16 to 25 or so. Do you anticipate any trend in that? Do you see that as an outlier, or is that a trend? Or is that predictable?

F. Spencer: With respect to the review of staffing deci­sions, we haven’t been able to predict from year to year how that’s going to go. We’ve really tried to see whether or not there’s anything that will help us with that. But there’s been no connection to anything, specifically, that we can see that would give us the opportunity to try to predict.

Really, the only thing that we can look at to say whether or not there might be some coming our way is how many inquiries occur at the second level, because someone has to go through that second level before they can come to me. So we do get information frequently on how many second-level inquiries have occurred. We see that going down a bit, so we’re hoping that will be reflected in the number of requests for reviews that come forward. But we haven’t be able to….

This year we’re on track for the same number as last year, actually. I think we’ve already had about 18 in this fiscal year — requests for review. As I say, there’s nothing we can do to predict that. When we do receive those requests, we try to give them some priority. That means that it affects the workload, our internal workload, when we have to do that because of the small size of our staff, which means that then we do turn to our contracted auditors to carry out some of the work that we might do internally, and that sort of drives our costs up in that respect.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Thank you again for your presentation.

On the first page of your executive summary, I just want to quote. “Findings with respect to the recruitment and selection process continue to be of concern.” Then we drop down. Even though you qualify that things are heading in the right direction, I find it a little bit of an issue for myself. “Fifty-one percent of appointments had one or more significant errors that had either unknown or mitigated impacts on the outcome.” Fifty-one percent of all hirings within the government have a flag attached to them?

F. Spencer: They have an error that could have an impact, yeah. But it’s not as significant a concern for us as when we find an error that has a negative impact on the outcome. That number is…. I think it’s around 6 percent.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): So you mean that’s the number that’s going in the right direction?

F. Spencer: Yeah. What we see with those, that 51 percent, is that…. First of all, we’re not seeing as many errors. We often would see — in a competition process — two, three, four errors in a process that could have an impact on the outcome. But now what we’re finding is that there were fewer errors occurring. So we may find selection processes where there was only one error, but we don’t tie that to any negative incoming into the selection process.

What we look at that as is kind of a warning flag, a warning signal, that here are some errors that are occurring. And if there hadn’t been other circumstances…. Perhaps somebody was included in the competition who didn’t have the posted requirements, but as the competition progressed, that person was eliminated from consideration. So there was no impact of that error on the outcome of the competition, but there could have been, if other circumstances had occurred.

We say that those are warnings. They’re something you need to pay attention to. The fact that the overall error rate is going down for us is a signal that there is being attention paid to the errors that are occurring and that improvements are being made in how these processes are being conducted. We’re encouraged by that.

[8:55 a.m.]

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I concur they’re going in the right direction, but I just find it hard to believe that 51 percent of all hirings have some form of error attached to them.

F. Spencer: An error. Right.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I mean, to me, that’s a finger pointing at the staff, the senior staff that are conducting these things, that, to be frank, probably need some additional lessons in hiring processes. It’s an onus on you to pick these things up…

F. Spencer: Yes.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): …and it’s just a continual cost that seems to multiply like a snowball as this goes down to the end.

I would hope…. I’m definitely not being critical of you or even the senior staff. It’s just that these are issues I really think should be addressed. That’s an awfully high number.

F. Spencer: I think that’s a valid concern and a good ob­ser­vation. I would say that as we conduct individual audits of appointments and identify these errors — not as we conduct them but when we’re completed with a certain cycle of these — we provide individual audit reports to deputy ministers so they can see, within their own organizations, where errors have occurred and where there may be need for some training or some correction.

We also provide an overall report to the deputy minister of the Public Service Agency, and not only provide her with all the reports where there have been errors identified, but with a cumulative sort of report and indication of where there are problem areas.

She and her staff take this very seriously. Where we have pointed out issues of concern, we see areas of improvement in the following year. I know that they’re looking at not only ways to improve the current process but to increase the knowledge and awareness of the managers who are conducting hiring processes. We’re optimistic that we’ll continue to see improvement in the future.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Okay, thank you.

N. Simons: I think that it would be helpful, perhaps, to know what the range of those errors are, in terms of assessing their seriousness or if there is intent and such, because I agree. The 51 percent sounds like: “The 51 percent are errors.” Those are not 51 percent hiring errors.

I also wondered if I could just follow up. The number of actual appointments per year in the public service — what number are we dealing with overall? Is that a steady trend, year to year? Is it different, obviously, when governments change, and has that been an impact? There are multiple questions in one.

F. Spencer: Okay. What we look at are appointments to and within the public service. The number, for this past year, was around 6,000. As I say, it’s not new people coming in. It’s internal movements, so people are being promoted, laterally transferred or moving to other positions.

That number has been increasing for the last, I’m not sure, maybe five years or more. As I may have mentioned, on average, over the last four years or so, it’s gone up more than 10 percent each year.

It wouldn’t seem to be tied to new government or a change of government. It’s just a trend that’s increasing, in terms of…. At one point in time there was what was called “controlled staffing initiatives” in place. When those came off a number of years ago…. It’s just been an ongoing trend.

N. Simons: The other part was the range of errors.

F. Spencer: Oh, the range of errors. Yes, you’re quite right. There’s a range of errors. They could be very simple, just somebody has transposed numbers on a sheet. Instead of saying 21, it says 12, or something like that. That might have an impact on the scoring, but that impact on the scoring may be very minimal in that the same person still wins the competition, as they might’ve in the past. Or they might be more serious errors.

Where we try to draw the distinction in how serious these errors are is where the error has an impact on the outcome of the competition. That’s where we see either the wrong person being appointed or somebody being eliminated that shouldn’t have been eliminated. We consider that a negative impact.

Where there’s no negative impact on the outcome, that’s what we call “merit with exceptions.” Those errors, I can’t lay them all out for you, but there is a range of those errors, and we highlight each of those and bring them to the attention of the hiring managers.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions?

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

F. Spencer: I don’t think so.

Anything, Dave?

No, I think that’s all.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much for your thorough presentation and making the transition to new responsibilities. We really appreciate you coming in.

F. Spencer: Thank you. Thanks for your attention.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’ll take a short recess while we set up the next presentation.

The committee recessed from 8:59 a.m. to 9:05 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next we have the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and Registrar of Lobbyists.

How are you this morning, Michael McEvoy?

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION
AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

M. McEvoy: Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, hon. Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the committee. Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to present the budget service plan for the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.

Joining me today is my deputy, oline Twiss, to my right, as well as Dave Van Swieten. I’m sure you’re long familiar with Dave’s role in the shared services for the four officers that share 947 Fort Street. I also want to recognize members of my staff who are joining us this morning in the gallery.

Let me conclude my introductory remarks by acknowledging that this is the third time we have had the opportunity to meet this year, two being formal presentations in the setting of this committee room and the third being a visit to our offices, initiated, I should say, by committee members. We really appreciated that you took time from your schedule to familiarize yourself on a firsthand basis with the work that we do in our office.

Turning to our budget presentation, I would like to begin by summarizing the documents before you. They include the statutory officer cover memo, the four budget tables, the three-year budget and service plan for both of my offices, and their respective annual reports.

As I serve both as Registrar of Lobbyists and Information and Privacy Commissioner, I will briefly highlight key accomplishments of the two offices, outline our priorities in the coming fiscal year and detail our budget request.

This budget and service plan are the first I have had the honour to present to you as commissioner and registrar.

Let me begin with my role as Registrar of Lobbyists. As registrar, I have a legislative duty to monitor and enforce the Lobbyists Registration Act or LRA. My duty recently expanded when the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act of 2017 came into force on May 1, 2018. The act introduced a two-year cooling off period for lobbyists who are former public office holders. Lobbyists who are subject to the cooling off period can request from me an exemption to the two-year prohibition on lobbying from my office.

I have made six decisions since May, and they can be found on the ORL website.

The work, to date, however, provides only a small glimpse of the undertaking that lies ahead for the ORL, should the Legislature pass a second piece of legislation: the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act of 2018, which was introduced on October 29 and is before members now.

These reforms are both extensive and comprehensive and, if passed, will usher in new reporting mechanisms for lobbyists, harmonized registration requirements for consultant and in-house lobbyists and require lobbyists to include new information in the registry, such as for gifts and political contributions. They will bring greater transparency to who controls, directs or funds lobbying.

What is also clear is that the changes will result in an expansion of the scope of compliance reviews and investigation that my office conducts.

The ORL’s key priorities for the fiscal year 2019-20 will be two-pronged. Assuming the reforms I have just mentioned pass, our first goal is to ensure their sound implementation. I can’t overstate the importance of this goal.

These changes will significantly improve transparency and accountability for lobbying activities in the province. To successfully implement the reforms, the ORL must rebuild the registry. This will require managing its design, development, testing and implementation. The changes will also need to be properly communicated and explained to both lobbyists and the public.

Within the ORL, we will need to review and establish processes to manage the new provisions the reforms bring to our oversight, investigations and enforcement under the act.

Our second goal is to ensure that these changes to the LRA are well understood so that we achieve a high rate of compliance with the act. We plan to publish numerous webinars for lobbyists, create a brochure and conduct information workshops and other activities to support this goal.

I will now turn to my role as the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner. The issues confronting my office grow more complex and challenging with each passing year, challenges that are not unique to B.C. and are faced by information and privacy regulators globally.

[9:10 a.m.]

Access-to-information law continues to strain under the weight of increasing demand, as government shifts from paper to digital systems. At the same time, democratic institutions themselves are being challenged around the world. A tectonic shift shook the privacy landscape this past year following sensational revelations about how Facebook and Cambridge Analytica used personal information for political campaigning. I am intimately familiar with this matter. As I mentioned to you in April, I helped lead the U.K. Information Commissioner’s office investigation into the two organizations prior to being appointed to my present office.

This massive privacy breach drew the world’s attention to the harm that can arise from inadequate personal information management practices, including the impacts that go to the very core of our democracy. I will come back to this in a moment when I talk about what my office proposes to do to help B.C. organizations keep pace with legal and technological changes that impact personal information management practices.

When I last met with the committee, I discussed our work in some depth so I will touch only briefly this morning on our major accomplishments. More of the detail can be found at pages 10 to 13 of our submission.

First, we have maintained a focus on reducing the backlog of investigation and adjudication cases. We continue implementation of our continuous improvement process to ensure we are working as efficiently and as effectively as possible.

Second, we launched a series of privacy awareness lesson plans for teachers of grades 6 to 12 students. With these tools, teachers are helping students learn how to protect their personal information and privacy rights in our digital world. The plans, which were created in collaboration with Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial privacy protection authorities, incorporate videos, class discussions and exercise. They introduce students to the foundation principles of privacy that can guide decision-making in their lives.

We had an incredible response to these lesson plans when we launched them just before the start of the school year. A key message in one of the plans is “Know the deal.” The plan engages students in a conversation about the business model used by many social media companies and on-line platforms, namely that services provided by these organizations are not free but are given in exchange for something the world now understands to be incredibly valuable and sensitive — that is, the user’s personal information.

The takeaway is that students need to use caution and care when providing information to organizations and that they have rights when it comes to how these companies use their information. These lessons are not only valuable for students but for all of us, I would suggest.

Third, we have issued clear and concise guidance for B.C.’s half-million businesses that are subject to B.C.’s Personal Information Protection Act and may now be subject to the new European general data protection regulation, or GDPR.

The GDPR applies to organizations that have an established presence in the EU, offer goods and services to individuals in the EU or monitor the behavior of individuals in the EU. Organizations that do not comply face significant fines. The guidance we have issued helps B.C. organizations determine if they are subject to the GDPR and explains how to comply with both B.C.’s PIPA and the GDPR.

Speaking of guidance, we also recently published material on protecting personal information during cannabis transactions. That personal information is very sensitive. Some countries may even deny entry to individuals known to have purchased cannabis. The guidance document helps cannabis retailers and purchasers understand their rights and obligations under our legislation in British Columbia.

These initiatives, lesson plans and “knowing the deal” and on-line platform’s guidance on legal compliance are just a few of the examples of timely and relevant assistance we provide to British Columbians and B.C. organizations.

Now, I would like to move to my priorities for the OIPC for the fiscal ’19-20 year. My first priority is to provide more timely service to citizens for complaints, reviews and adjudications. As I have noted, we have focused our continuous improvement process on addressing the backlogs at investigation and adjudication. Still, the public’s demand for service from my office continues to grow. This is no surprise given how new technologies are impacting on access and privacy.

In 2013, complaints and requests for reviews and breach notifications numbered 1,300. That number is likely to exceed 1,600 this year and shows no signs of slowing.

As I complete my first year as commissioner, I will evaluate whether there are many more efficiencies to be gained from our continuous improvement process or whether other means are necessary to address the increasing demand on the office. Depending on the result, I may request additional resources from this committee to augment our capacity for investigations and adjudication.

[9:15 a.m.]

My second priority is to undertake a campaign to encourage B.C.’s organizations to adopt and implement privacy management programs. Why? We live in an economy where public trust and privacy compliance by businesses are inextricably linked.

In my view, privacy management programs are vital to ensuring that B.C. businesses can succeed in this environment. Privacy management programs ensure that organizations are compliant with present legal requirements and that they are also ready to face the future and the inevitable wave of regulatory changes that will undoubtedly come ashore in B.C.

Europe’s GDPR, with fines of up to $30 million Canadian, give a broad hint at what is on the horizon. It is important that B.C. businesses succeed in this environment, where personal data crosses boundaries in an instant and public expectation about its protection has never been greater.

To help businesses and other organizations, we’ve planned an ambitious initiative to support them in their development of privacy management programs through a range of re­sources, including guidance, outreach and consultations. This way, more B.C. businesses will remain competitive through their implementation of sound personal information practices, whether they operate locally or in a global arena. Depending on the demand for these programs, we may again return to the committee to request additional resources to expand their reach.

I referred to the fact that personal data now travels instantly across borders — and, with it, the public’s expectation of its protection. B.C. businesses must ensure that they are prepared for this, but so must B.C.’s regulator of privacy. It requires my office to work with other provincial, federal and international authorities to ensure that the personal information of our citizens is properly protected. This is especially true in the Asia-Pacific region, where B.C. businesses conduct most of their international commerce.

Since 2016, the OIPC has served a leading role in the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities. APPA is the principal forum for privacy and data protection authorities in the Asia-Pacific region; 20 regulators from 13 countries are represented in APPA. For almost the past three years, supported by this committee, our office has served as its secretariat.

APPA serves as a platform for a range of issues, including cooperation on enforcement actions in the Asia-Pacific region. At our most recent forum, we looked at issues of artificial intelligence and various approaches that we, as regulators, should take to managing data-breach notifications. It also included discussions with multinational corporations, including Google and Apple, whose products and services affect our daily lives.

The OIPC’s three-year term as APPA’s secretariat is up for renewal in June 2019. We are being strongly encouraged by a number of jurisdictions to seek a second three-year term. Our office receives about $20,000 per year from membership fees to cover part of the cost of being the secretariat, leaving a shortfall of about $50,000 in each of the next three fiscal years to cover that function. Given the significance of this role, this committee’s past support and the encouragement of our regulatory colleagues, I am asking for the committee’s continuing support of the secretariat by leaving $50,000 per year in our base budget for the next three years, starting in 2019-20, so that we can carry on this work.

I’d like to spend my final few minutes just summarizing our budget request for 2019-20 and its rationale. The budget for my two offices currently breaks down as follows: 68 percent for salaries and benefits; 6 percent for professional services; 18 percent for fixed costs, such as our shared-services costs, rent and utilities; 7 percent for operating expenses, like amortization and office expenses; and 1 percent for travel. We have a staff complement of 38 positions.

For the forthcoming fiscal year, my office is faced with an adjustment to cover government-mandated salary increments and adjustments for schedule A employees and management employees of $64,000. In addition, we face increases in our shared-services costs of $46,000, plus a building occupancy of $42,000 and other increases of $11,000. We have absorbed similar cost pressures in the past by exhausting the flexibility in our budget — for example, delays in hiring. This is not an approach I am able to replicate without reducing staff resources and adding to the case backlog in future.

To sum up, I am requesting a funding increase this year to cover these new and ongoing cost pressures in the amount of $163,000. As I noted for the ORL section of this submission, I am pleased that the legislation introduced in October, the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, will bring increased transparency to lobbying in B.C. and address the recommendations my office has advocated for since 2013. If the legislation passes, I will require additional resources to ensure we can properly support these legislative changes.

[9:20 a.m.]

For the fiscal year 2019-20, my office would require $287,000 in additional operating costs to hire and provide workspace for two additional staff. These positions will be necessary for us to implement the new legislation without interfering with ongoing operations, including our efforts to address the backlogs.

In addition, the amendments would require a capital investment of $200,000 in each of the next two fiscal years to rebuild a searchable registry that meets the needs of the new reporting requirements set out in the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act of 2018.

To summarize, the combined operating budget request is for a net increase of $450,000 for a total budget request of $6.702 million. This represents an operating budget increase of 2.6 percent for mandated increases and 4.5 percent to implement the legislation, a total of 7 percent compared to the current fiscal year.

In addition to the above-mentioned capital request to rebuild the registry, $49,000 in capital funds are requested for the ’19-20 fiscal year, primarily to support IT resources within our office, as well as the shared infrastructure with the other three offices in the corporate shared-services model.

In order of priority for my operating budget, I therefore ask consideration of the committee for funding to cover the mandated increases in salary, benefits, IT building and other costs netting out at $163,000 and, if the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2018, passes, funding to cover the implementation of the legislative amendments to the LRA in the amount of $287,000 for 2.0 FTEs to ensure successful implementation of the many changes and ongoing operations oversight to ensure those are successfully supported.

For 2019-20, this request represents a total operating budget of $6.702 million and a total capital budget of $249,000.

This concludes my remarks. Thank you for your attention this morning. I’m now happy and pleased to answer any questions you may have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. Appreciate the thorough analysis of everything you’re doing.

I’m just wondering. I’m looking at page 20 of the budget submission, and I’m wondering if you could just walk us through the actual line item changes that have happened. I guess part of the issue, Michael, is that you have two hats. From the committee’s point of view, we’re just trying to get our heads around the changes with both of those. That would be very helpful.

I’m wondering if you could walk us through just the line items and, particularly, the changes on that page 20.

M. McEvoy: I should start by saying that I think we have made great effort over the year since we gained responsibility for the Lobbyists Registration Act to integrate the operation of the two offices, to make the most effective use of our resources. For example, investigators who work on files under access and information will also work on investigations related to the Lobbyists Registration Act. We’ve developed that expertise, and I think it makes for effective use of the resources that we have.

I don’t know if there are any specific items that you would like to talk about. I would note a couple of the variabilities that might have drawn your attention. For example, professional services…

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yeah. I had a circle around that.

M. McEvoy: …moving down. What that reflects, actually, is a change in the way we are accounting for certain expenditures. The expenditures on the technical side, technical services related to the lobbyists registration aspect of the operation — those have been moved out of STOB 60 and moved to STOB 63. That’s why you’ll see an increase in the information services in 63 and a concurrent reduction in what you see on the professional services side of things.

That may be, I think, one of the more significant changes that reflects the way that we account for expenditure.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Sure. Then just 75 and 85. I’m assuming that there’s a description of “Other.” I apologize if I missed it. I always hate “Other” as a line item. If you wouldn’t mind explaining in terms of the building occupancy, is that extra office space? Is there any buildout? What is that, exactly?

M. McEvoy: It’s two things. It’s an increase in the rental charges, and in addition, in order to accommodate what we believe we require for the Lobbyists Registration Act in terms of staffing, that will require some additional space to do that. That, I think, takes into account both the increase and the added need for space.

[9:25 a.m.]

For those of you who toured the offices, you will know that we are pretty much full to the brim. We have managed to acquire additional space within the building, which I think we were hoping to use for board space, because that’s in demand in the offices. But I expect that will have to likely be used for offices for the new hires that we will be employing to carry out the changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I think the other is, if it’s similar to the last presentation, in regards to the shared services. Is that correct, Dave?

D. Van Swieten: Yes, that’s right. It’s the corporate shared-services component we previously discussed.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Perfect.

Questions?

T. Redies: Thanks for your presentation, Michael.

Going back to the professional services, I noted in 2017-18 you were under about $209,000 to what you budgeted. What was the reason for that, and is there potential for that type of under-budget spending in subsequent years?

M. McEvoy: One of the significant variabilities in the professional services is particularly the number of judicial reviews that are launched in respect of decisions that are taken by our office. That number varies widely from year to year. In some cases, it’s been as low as, I think, the $100,000-plus region. I think that’s kind of roughly where it was last year, my recollection is. Sometimes it’s gone well over $200,000.

There’s also a variable demand, although I expect in the future we’ll be increasing for technical contracted services as we get into more complicated investigations. For example, AggregateIQ is one of those things that’s been in the news and has required some technical expertise.

I think, in terms of the professional services in this previous year, it relates — that we haven’t had as many judicial reviews as we’ve had in the past.

I’m going to ask Dave if he has any other comment on that.

T. Redies: If I can just clarify, it also looks like your information systems were up 187. Maybe that’s a similar type of situation — that what you’re forecasting for the 2019-20 year has already happened in 2017-18.

D. Van Swieten: Yes, that’s exactly the case. We recognized the accounting adjustment this year, but it was too late to adjust the budget. Going forward, we’re now correcting that.

T. Redies: I see. Thank you.

M. Dean: I just have a couple of quick questions. The building occupancy cost — do we know what percentage that is?

D. Van Swieten: We don’t. Previously you asked about the rental cost, which is part of the building occupancy. Are you interested in the building occupancy as a whole or just the rent?

M. Dean: Both, if that’s okay.

D. Van Swieten: Both, okay. I don’t have the ability to break it down here, but we will get that information to you.

M. Dean: Okay. Thank you.

My question about the OIPC secretariat. What would happen if the committee didn’t approve the funding for us? Basically, it looks like British Columbia is subsidizing that. Would it still continue, and someone else would take on the secretariat role? We’d still have some of the benefits but without such a high cost.

M. McEvoy: We would have to reflect on, if the committee didn’t approve the funding, whether we would allow our names to be put forward for the secretariat, given our present fiscal situation. We would have to consider that.

M. Dean: If we didn’t put our name forward for the secretariat, what would happen to that group where that learning happens? What would actually happen to that group?

M. McEvoy: It would carry on. Another country, presumably, would put their name forward and take on that responsibility for that.

I think it’s certainly been the case that it has enhanced B.C.’s stature in the Asia-Pacific region over the last number of years, and I think that’s consistent, as well, with the approach British Columbia’s had to be a face on to the Asia-Pacific region.

As regulators, we thought it was important to be front and centre in that role. So that’s the reason we took it on, as well as being, frankly, well respected in the international community in terms of the work that we do. We’re looked to by other authorities in the Asia-Pacific for the work that we’ve accomplished in the past. So that’s why, I think, we have been encouraged to continue for another three-year term.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Michael, just to follow up on that, you recover $20,000, spend $50,000 — so $30,000. Is everybody paying their fair share? Is there any subsidization in there? Is there any chance of a bit more recourse to garner more funds coming back from other partners or not?

[9:30 a.m.]

M. McEvoy: There is a chance. Actually, the funding formula was tweaked a couple of years ago, I think, to make it fairer. Authorities are charged on the basis of the size of their jurisdiction. We are, actually, probably somewhere in the middle range to higher range in terms of our budget, compared to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, for example. It’s about 100 people. But in other jurisdictions, it can be anywhere as small as New Zealand, that might have an office of ten. The funding is based on the size of the office.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): And the overall expenditures of the office — is that how they work it?

M. McEvoy: Yes. I should say…. I mean, Australia was the secretariat for a number of years, prior to us taking that task on, and similarly underwrote some of the cost of the office.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I’m just asking. I mean, it’s a small number, but it’s just…. If everybody is paying their fair share, then that’s fine. Thank you.

T. Redies: Just one more question. I think you mentioned that in total, because of the new legislation, it was $287,000 in expenses. The total is $450,000, so if you had not had to ramp up for this new legislation, you’d only be increasing your costs by about $163,000, which is roughly, I think, about 2 percent, versus having to increase it by 7 percent because of the new legislation. Am I correct in my numbers?

M. McEvoy: Yes, that’s right.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Any other questions?

Was there anything else you wanted to add, Michael?

M. McEvoy: No. I’m just very pleased to have this opportunity. We have, in the past, indicated a desire to report more frequently. So we look forward to, once again, seeing you probably in the spring, if not before then.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.

We’ll take a short recess while we set up the next presentation.

The committee recessed from 9:32 a.m. to 9:43 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We thought we could do some deliberations while we wait for Stan. If I could have a motion to go in camera.

S. Furstenau: So moved.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 9:43 a.m. to 10:03 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We are now going to take a short recess while we set up the next meeting.

The committee recessed from 10:03 a.m. to 10:08 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Next up we have the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner — Stan Lowe.

OFFICE OF THE POLICE
COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

S. Lowe: Good morning, Chair, Deputy Chair and hon. members of this committee. Once again, it is my privilege to appear before you and present to you, for your consideration, our budget request for the next three fiscal years.

In attendance with me are Deputy Commissioner Rollie Woods; our director of operations and strategic initiatives, Andrea Spindler; and Dave Van Swieten, the executive director of corporate shared services. I’m indebted to Ms. Spindler and Ms. Kimura of our office for their very valuable assistance in the preparation of our submissions and service plan for you today.

Now, I’m mindful that this committee has been very busy with its work throughout the province. I’ve recently reviewed your budget consultation report released on November 15, which included 100 recommendations that flowed from your work. You’re likely approaching exhaustion, so I wish to thank you in advance for your time and thoughtful consideration of our budget request.

[10:10 a.m.]

This is the last time I will have the privilege of addressing this honourable committee, as my tenure as commissioner ends in February 2019. I wish to begin by expressing my gratitude to this committee and past committees, who have provided steadfast support to our office since the sweeping changes to the oversight system were unanimously passed by the House in 2010. Your valuable support over the years has been crucial to many improvements to the police oversight system and the operations of our office.

This past July 2018 marked the 20th anniversary of our office. This milestone was an opportunity to reflect on the development of our office and what the future may hold for civilian oversight of law enforcement in British Columbia. I am very proud of our collective accomplishments as an organization and mindful of the work that remains to ensure public confidence in policing and police confidence in our oversight system.

As part of the legacy initiative, alternative dispute resolution, ADR, has become cemented in our operations and constitutes an essential component of our oversight system. In less serious incidents, ADR serves to repair and maintain positive relationships between police and the community they serve. This mending of relationships has far-reaching implications, as it has been our experience that both parties benefit from ADR and rarely return to the complaints system in the future.

When I began my appointment, ADR was utilized approximately 7 percent of the time. It is now being employed almost 40 percent of the time, with room for growth if aided by legislative improvements.

The efficiency and effectiveness of our office has improved immensely over the years with the introduction of internal business practices, external information bulletins and a regimented training program. We are able to engage in principled decision-making, which has resulted in decisions and outcomes that are consistent and measured. This has been confirmed by a previous audit by the special committee of the Legislature and exemplified in our adjudicated process and judicial reviews.

I note that there are two new faces to the committee this year, so I intend to speak for a moment about the landscape of civilian oversight of law enforcement in British Columbia and, in a smaller part, in Canada. I intend on providing you with a high-level summary of our formal submission, focusing on our funding request contained in our memo note in our materials. I anticipate I may take approximately 25 minutes, which will leave you with time for questions that you may have.

Turning to civilian oversight of police in British Columbia, over the past decade British Col­um­bia has earned the reputation as a leader in Canada in the area of civilian oversight of police. In fact, our reputation and the openness of governments in this area has facilitated a beneficial relationship with oversight leaders from Ontario, including Mr. Justice Michael Tulloch and Gerry McNeilly.

Justice Tulloch is a sitting member of the court of appeal whose review of the police oversight resulted in a legislative sea change in civilian oversight in Ontario. He focused and relied upon British Columbia in his consultations with both government and our two oversight agencies, which strongly influenced his recommendations and subsequent legislation. Justice Tulloch has also provided valuable training to our analysts in a variety of areas.

Gerry McNeilly heads the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, which provides oversight to approximately 25,000 officers in Ontario. He has met with our government in relation to oversight in this province, as well as in the creation of the Human Rights Commission. For many years he has provided invaluable training to our staff in oversight. His work in systemic reviews in ADR is well respected throughout the country.

As with all jurisdictions in Canada, the unfortunate catalyst underlying the development of civilian oversight of law enforcement has been tragic encounters between police and the public they serve. In British Columbia, I need only mention the Frank Paul inquiry and the Robert Dziekanski inquiry, which both gave rise to sweeping legislative changes in oversight in British Columbia.

Two important developments include significant legislative reform to improve the oversight powers of our office and the creation of the independent investigations office, the IIO. The legislative reform which took place was based primarily on the recommendations of the late Josiah Wood, Q.C., in his report on the police complaint system for municipal police in 2007. Many of his recommendations were passed into law by a unanimous House in 2010.

The independent investigations office was created pursuant to the recommendations of the Braidwood Inquiry. Their oversight function involves the investigation of potential criminal misconduct related to incidents between police and public resulting in serious harm or death.

[10:15 a.m.]

Now, our office is entrusted with the oversight of professional misconduct — complaints and investigations involving municipal police. Where the investigations are still undertaken by the police, we retain a limited residual jurisdiction to refer matters to the prosecution service for criminal charge assessment. In practical terms, this usually relates to conduct that does not result in serious harm or death, which is outside the jurisdiction of the IIO. Two examples are common assaults and driving offences.

It is important that you understand that there was no redundancy in the work of the OPCC and IIO. We have in place a practical process which jurisdictionally defines our respective roles and avoids the duplication of work.

The role of the OPCC is clearly set out in legislation. We are a civilian independent office of the Legislature who has a general responsibility for overseeing and monitoring complaints, investigations and the administration of police discipline in proceedings involving municipal police in British Columbia. In addition, we are tasked with ensuring that the objectives of the Legislature, as set under legislation, are achieved.

In practical terms, we exercise both a gatekeeping and public interest function. We utilize oversight mechanisms that improve the accountability of the police discipline process, which in turn maintains public confidence in the process.

Earlier I alluded to the positive developments made by our office in terms of ADR and effective oversight. Unfortunately, the legislative changes passed by the House have become dated and have only resulted in a modest improvement in investigations and outcomes undertaken by police.

We still encounter significant pockets of resistance to civilian oversight, lapses in cooperation amongst police at every level. While police agencies are very supportive of civilian oversight in their messaging to the public, in reality, in too many instances, this support is unreliable when it translates into action and cooperation with our office.

In my view, the failure by government to implement a mandatory contemporaneous oversight system, coupled with the limited oversight powers of our office to effectively improve the quality of investigations has diminished the potential accountability of the oversight process.

Josiah Wood make clear in his report that his recommendations constituted a last attempt at a model in which police investigate police. In 2019, a special committee of the Legislature will be convened, pursuant to our legislation, to conduct an audit of the police oversight system. Our office will be providing submissions to the committee for significant legislative reform, which encompasses several of the recommendations in Justice Tulloch’s report. We are undertaking our own internal audit of the police oversight process in preparation and in support of our submissions to the committee next year.

Now, on a more positive note, one mechanism of oversight has proven to be very valuable in terms of accountability and guidance for decision-makers. This is our gatekeeping function in relation to three avenues of adjudicative review by retired judges.

As gatekeepers, we are never tasked in determining whether or not a matter should be substantiated as misconduct. This is the jurisdiction of the retired judges. However, in two types of adjudicative review, we have participatory rights in the process to ensure that our substantive concerns are addressed on behalf of the public.

We sparingly and prudently exercise this gatekeeping function. Our statistics demonstrate, on average, that we disagree with the outcomes of the disciplinary process less than 2 percent of the time and send these on for adjudicative review. One aspect of our budget request is a funding increase to this very important mechanism of accountability.

I’d like to turn my comments briefly to oversight in Canada in order to give you a bit of the terrain. In Canada, the public is served by a network of federal and provincial organizations engaged in civilian oversight of police. Each jurisdiction may vary in terms of accountability and transparency in their respective oversight systems. However, what they share in common is that they’re able to garner a level of public confidence in the process, which allows the public to patiently await an outcome.

I can tell you that the same cannot be said in terms of police oversight with our neighbours to the south. When we discuss policing in the United States, the policing environment in the United States has been described in a state of crisis in terms of public confidence and policing in the public they serve.

The crisis of public confidence is a direct result of the absence of accountable civilian oversight of law enforcement. The answer is not putting a body-worn camera on every officer, as we know now the shortcomings of this approach in terms of compliance, reliability and ultimately accountability. The only oversight tool at the federal level was the use of the consent decrees upon police departments administered by the Department of Justice.

[10:20 a.m.]

These decrees were used as an oversight tool in cases involving systemic professional misconduct and criminal misconduct. I should add that one of the last departing acts of Attorney General Jeff Sessions was to severely curtail the use of consent decrees by the federal government.

There are very few jurisdictions with established civilian oversight agencies. The overwhelming majority of police agencies have no effective oversight. What the citizens in the United States are left with is public demonstration and protest in the streets by potential voters seeking justice from elected officials involved in determining whether a criminal prosecution should take place. This process for oversight for criminal misconduct is so obviously flawed and lacking in fairness.

I have some comments about the profession of policing. Policing has often been referred to as a noble profession, a description that I truly accept as true. Nobility has generally been defined as excellence of character and superior ethical qualities that are engaged in the service of others.

It has been my experience that those engaged in policing in this province work hard to uphold the nobility of policing and are almost always successful in this endeavour. Having worked in the field of oversight with law enforcement for a decade, I depart with an immense sense of respect and admiration for the profession of policing and the members who serve.

Finally, in concluding my introductory remarks, I would like to take a moment to speak about the people at the OPCC. Throughout my tenure, I have been bestowed the privilege of working amongst a staff of dedicated public servants committed to the common goals of promoting public trust in policing and police confidence in our civilian oversight system. British Columbians are well served by our people at the OPCC.

It’s important that you know that it has been a truly remarkable honour to serve the Legislature of British Columbia in my capacity as commissioner, and I thank you for that opportunity.

I will now turn to my budget submissions. At the outset, I will first summarize the three funding requests that I provide to the committee for their consideration and support.

The first request is in terms of dedicated or restrictive funding for adjudicated processes in judicial reviews and other legal processes. I will explain later the concept of dedicated or restrictive funding, but we are seeking access to $350,000 for the current fiscal year and $300,000 in base funding for the subsequent two fiscal years.

Our second funding request is that we are seeking $88,000 in funding for inflationary costs for salary, building and increased corporate shared services. I believe that’s for the following two years. We’ve experienced an increase in workload, in the increase in special municipal constables, SMCs, in British Columbia.

Our third funding request is for an additional FTE in the amount of $119,000. For our initial request in 2016, we received some funding, but the current numbers exceed our estimates back then by 50 percent. I hasten to add that the number of SMCs may significantly increase in the future, and I’ll elaborate on this prospect shortly in my submissions.

In total, we are seeking $350,000 in dedicated or restric­tive funding in the current fiscal year and an increase in base funding, which includes $507,000 for the following two years.

Now, I’d like to deal first with adjudicative avenues and judicial reviews. On page 24 of my budget submission…. I’m going to take you just through a couple of pages of that as it’s highlighted in my briefing note.

Under the previous legislation, if the commissioner disagreed with a decision by a discipline authority, the only option available is to arrange a public hearing. The legislative amendments that I alluded to earlier introduce two additional intermediate avenues of adjudicative review: the appointment of a retired judge to review a matter, and the review on the record.

On page 24, there is a history, from 2010 on, of the use of each of these avenues of adjudicative review. On average, you can see that they’ve only been resorted to, say, six or seven times a year.

[10:25 a.m.]

Dealing first with the appointment of a retired judge, following an investigation of a matter, the discipline authority must make a decision whether the evidence meets the threshold for the matter to go to a discipline proceeding. It is at this stage where our first gatekeeping function takes place. What we do is review the evidence, and we review the decision of the discipline authority. If I disagree and believe the evidence appears to meet the threshold for a discipline proceeding, I may appoint a retired judge to review the matter.

Since April 1, 2010, we’ve referred 34 files for section 117 reviews, and the retired judge has agreed in 27, or 79 percent, of these reviews. I have referred 12 matters to a retired judge last year for review and five matters in the first half of this fiscal year.

What that indicates is that those matters went ahead to a discipline proceeding, and the use of this particular adjudicative review has demonstrated that our office uses it sparingly with and with a significant record of agreement by retired judges.

Once a discipline proceeding has taken place, that’s the next gatekeeping function that we perform: whether at the completion of a discipline proceeding, we decide further review is required. Those are the other two avenues of adjudicative review on page 25 — that is, the review on the record and the public hearing.

Now, in cases where a discipline authority — or we’ll use the term “chief” — has decided that dismissal or reduction in rank is a proposed discipline, a member has a mandatory and automatic right to a public hearing or a review on the record. I have no discretion in that area.

In terms of a review on a record, this type of review is where a retired judge is appointed to conduct a paper review of the entire discipline proceeding and deliver a decision whether there is misconduct, and if substantiated, determine the corrective or disciplinary measures to be imposed.

Since April 1, 2010 — and I use that because that’s when the new legislation came in — I have arranged 13 reviews on the record, four of which have been a mandatory requirement under the Police Act, as a member was facing dismissal or a reduction in rank. I’ve utilized this form of review more frequently and referred one matter to review on the record in 2017-18 and three in the first half of 2018-19.

I like to resort to this area if there is a descent record in the discipline proceedings, because it’s less expensive, less time consuming, and I find it fairly effective. I can advise that an adjudicator has disagreed with me in only two cases where I’ve exercised my discretion to call this type of a review.

The final is a public hearing. Public hearings remain an option to the commissioner if I believe that such a review of the Police Act matter is required in the public interest. A retired judge is appointed to sit as the adjudicator and review the evidence, hear sworn testimony and arrive at a decision of whether there is misconduct and, if substantiated, determine the corrective or discipline measures to be imposed.

These hearings are open to the public, and the retired judge’s decision is final and conclusive. That’s an important aspect. They’re reviewed on the record and the public hearings are open to the public. I want to emphasize that there are two, what I call, cornerstones of oversight. One is accountability, and the other cornerstone is transparency. What I like about these avenues of oversight is that the public is invited to attend, and the media are invited to report.

Since April 1, 2010, there have been 17 public hearings arranged. Six of those were mandatory because of the proposed discipline, and 11 were initiated by me. I have arranged three public hearings in 2017-18 and one in the first half of 2018-19, as there is a reasonable basis for me to disagree with the discipline authority. For those public hearings in which I exercise my discretion to arrange this type of review, the adjudicator has only disagreed with my position in two of the public hearings.

Finally, on page 27, I just want to add that these adjudi­cative reviews have also resulted in a large body of precedent, which has served to educate discipline authorities who preside over matters, as well as the executive management policing and police boards, on the development of policy and training.

[10:30 a.m.]

As you’ll note, there are years in the chart where there have been no public hearings, but by all analysis, it is one of the areas that we do resort to frugally. In fact, it’s one that is a subject of criticism from some of our stakeholders — that we are too frugal in our access to adjudicative avenues of review.

In terms of judicial reviews…. This is reviews by the courts of administrative decisions that I have made. Last year was a particularly busy year, responding to a number of reviews. Currently, this office is engaged in seven judicial reviews. All have been initiated by police unions and the police departments.

Now, the judicial reviews initiated by police associations question the commissioner’s power to utilize one of the three forms of adjudicative review available under the act. The petitioners are seeking relief from the courts to quash my decision to call such proceedings. The guidance from the courts as to the interpretation of the legislation is critical, as the intent of the legislation could be undermined.

To date, there have been 15 concluded judicial reviews — 11 initiated by police or police unions, two initiated by our office, one by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and one by a complainant.

The office has been very conservative when determining to initiate judicial reviews. The two reviews initiated by this office where a decision was rendered by the court are over six years ago. I have not initiated a judicial review in six years.

In the report to the special committee in 2012, the Auditor General found that the commissioner promotes thorough and competent investigations of police complaints by its exercise of discretion pursuant to the act, which includes the power to refer a matter to one of three adjudicative avenues.

Our office will continue to exercise our gatekeeping function under the act and is committed to following a principled approach in arriving at our decisions. The decisions from the courts will provide guidance to our office in terms of the interpretation of the legislation.

Now you have an idea about…. Last year, and I mentioned that it was a particularly busy year, we were granted access to funds of up to $810,000, which I can confirm were fully spent.

Historically, public hearings have been a significant source of legal expenditures, particularly as public hearings are mandatory under the act. There were three public hearings last year and one so far this year. I want to identify one public hearing matter, one matter that we dealt with under our act that was also costly from an adjudicative standpoint.

The costs associated with the former Chief Frank Elsner matter, including responding to petitions filed by Chief Elsner and the Victoria police board, have been particularly costly to this office, accounting for almost one-quarter of the total budget for dedicated funding last year.

This matter was taken to the B.C. Court of Appeal, where the court affirmed the commissioner’s discretionary power to order a public trust hearing, following a review of an internal discipline decision. That was one in which we enjoyed success there. The cost borne by the office for this one matter has totalled almost half a million dollars. That’s over two years.

Of the cases referred to adjudicative review last year, where a decision has been determined, the retired judge has agreed with the commission in all but one matter. I am mindful of the costs associated with adjudicative reviews and only send those matters where the police department, in my view, has clearly erred in their decision.

Now, it’s difficult to predict with any certainty the number of reviews this office will be involved in. However, considering the number of reviews the office was involved in last year, we project we will again substantially exceed the amount in dedicated funding for this year.

Public hearings that were called last year have continued through to this year. And one new public hearing, three reviews on the record and one section 117 review have been arranged so far this year. In addition, those seven outstanding judicial reviews, we anticipate, will be litigated in the court this fiscal year.

I again mention that all of these reviews have been initiated by police associations.

On page 29, the chart sets out our current adjudicative and legal expenditures. You’ll see that, to date, we’ve spent $372,000, but I can advise you that our total projected costs are $872,000. There are bills to be rendered, and there are ongoing adjudicative reviews, as well as judicial reviews, that are taking place. That’s, again, our best estimate for the year.

[10:35 a.m.]

I can tell you that when you review the accessible financial information for municipal police departments collectively, it demonstrates that police have access to funding for legal expenses related to the Police Act in the millions of dollars, compared to our current legal budget.

Smaller agencies — such as the Victoria police department, which has 200 members — have access to legal funding that far exceeds our entire legal budget that is meant to fund all adjudicative and judicial reviews in this province.

The Victoria and Esquimalt police board recently disclosed that they spent more than $810,000 on legal fees related to the investigations into the former police chief Frank Elsner, and this figure does not include the former Chief Elsner’s salary and benefits he received during the time he was suspended with pay, including pension fund contributions. When those costs are combined, it’s reported that the board has spent over $1 million for the investigations, legal fees and salaries.

I also wish to advise the committee that police associations that act on behalf of their members have access to a litigation fund in the millions. These associations enjoy a sizeable advantage in their ability to initiate legal proceedings which can easily outpace our current level of funding.

I’ll turn now to our request for funding. As I indicated earlier, our office has been very appreciative of the strong support we’ve received from the Legislative Assembly and this important committee over the years. The legislative vi­sion and support of the House has made British Columbia a leader in the landscape of oversight of law enforcement in Canada.

We have maintained a fiscally prudent approach to spending, returning surpluses to the provincial treasury over the past five years, and we are projecting a modest surplus in terms of our operating budget this year. This is a result of a lag in hiring for an investigative analyst position, which we project will be filled by January 2019.

While the calculation of discretionary spending is subjective, by taking a conservative approach to our calculation, approximately 2 percent of our budget is allocated to discretionary spending. That’s a very small allocation. All other costs borne by our office are considered fixed costs. Now, the calculation for discretionary spending is based on allocating 50 percent of travel, 50 percent of non-adjudicative contracts and 25 percent of STOB 65, which is office expenses. There is a pie chart on page 39 which displays our use of a tremendous amount of blue ink, as opposed to red ink.

I want to talk about the concept of dedicated funding. Now, the adjudicative and legal expenses for this year are, once again, projected to exceed the allotted dedicated funding amount. This is directly as a result of costs associated with responding to judicial reviews filed and adjudicative reviews which have continued into this year, along with new reviews arranged.

Five matters have been referred to a retired judge through one of three avenues of adjudicative review. In legal proceedings initiated by the police associations, these include challenges to our discretionary abilities.

This amount is referred to as dedicated or restrictive funding. The reason why it’s given that name is because any of these amounts that we do not use go back to treasury. We cannot encroach on them. They’re made by the committee explicitly for the use of adjudicative reviews and judicial reviews and other legal expenses associated with our operations. I say that because while we estimated $850,000, I can confirm with the committee that if that is not spent, every penny not spent will resort back to general revenue in the Treasury Board. It does not go to our operations.

I can tell you that last year, though, we were able to contribute, even though we were short in terms of funding for our adjudicative reviews and judicial reviews. Out of operating expenses, we were able to divert $69,000 to try to reduce that burden. And this committee was very kind in their support of our office last year in fulfilling the remaining requirements, which brought that dedicated funding to approximately $810,000.

We have tried, in our funding, to predict as best we can and take a measured approach with respect to our requests for funding before this committee. The committee last year increased our funding from $400,000 to $500,000.

[10:40 a.m.]

I’m starting to see — unless there are some significant legislative changes that come in, in the offing — a pattern of where our expenses are going to enter into the $800,000 mark on a consistent basis. So the request is for $350,000 this year and $300,000 in the subsequent two years.

Our second request arises out of the funding for an investigative analyst position. In August of 2016, all special municipal constables, SMCs, fell under the jurisdiction of this office. At the time of implementation of this regulation, we estimated before the committee that there were approxi­mately 400 SMCs in the province of British Columbia. We have learned now, almost two years later, that there are almost 600. The difference is really the equivalent of the size of the Abbotsford police department — another police department’s worth.

The use of SMCs has mostly been dedicated to roles which directly interact with the public in an environment that’s conducive to citizen complaints. The training for these positions is provided for by the municipal police department, which may vary in duration and intensity. This is in contrast to…. Police, as defined under the legislation, must attend and complete police training as provided by the Justice Institute as well as a field component.

There is a significant and substantive difference in the level of training provided to SMCs in comparison to regular police constables. However, the SMCs are viewed as a cost-effective tool in policing, and it is on the rise in terms of its use by municipalities. As the cost of policing continues to rise, we anticipate that SMCs will continue to increase to offset the costs.

Since the implementation of the regulations, there have been 34 investigations into 95 allegations of police misconduct involving SMCs. Many of these investigations involve SMCs who work in the jail environment as guards and have included serious allegations of excessive force, some of which have resulted in criminal charges.

I can also tell you that, disappointingly, we’ve also received a number of significant investigations into SMCs involving sexual assault, sexual harassment and common assault allegations. These are proving to be far more time-consuming than we had imagined when we made our estimates.

One thing we look at, and something you may find important to know, is that SMCs are used a lot in the custodial environment. I mention that because if you look at Vancouver, they receive about 19,000 inmates a year. With that amount of inmates moving through, it has proven to be a vulnerable area for civil litigation, as well as for complaints.

Now, I mention this only as…. It’s speculative at this time, but I can tell you that we are in the conversation with government with respect to a gap in oversight. That gap in oversight involves SMCs working in RCMP jurisdictions. Those working in jails in Surrey, Richmond, Burnaby and anywhere else are municipal employees, but they have no oversight. That is where there’s a gap in oversight. All others in this province in the municipal realm have the OPCC providing oversight. So we are in the discussion. If that discussion progresses, I can assure you that the number of SMCs in this province under our jurisdiction will increase significantly.

What this province has always asked for and what policing in this province has always sought is some homogeneous aspect in terms of our oversight. I know that government is attuned to this concern. It is only a matter of time before it becomes more and more of a pressing issue.

Finally, our budget request also includes a request for inflationary costs. These are costs for increases in salary, building occupancy and corporate shared services. This is in the amount of $88,000. That request is for the subsequent two fiscal years, 2019-2020. It’s not for the current fiscal year. I could go into much detail, but I think, at a high level, it’s clear that these are primarily inflationary costs that we’ve been burdened with, without the ability to pay for them.

Those are my submissions. I’m prepared to answer any of the questions that you may have.

[10:45 a.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Well, thank you very much. That’s a lot to digest, but we really appreciate that.

Just for my own clarification, in regards to the adjudication and the request for additional funds, are many of these…? You have this chart that says “non-discretionary,” so many of the activities that are happening are non-discretionary. Just to be clear, the amounts that you’re asking extra are often actions that are taken that are non-discretionary that lead to this extra cost, especially in all the different items.

S. Lowe: That’s right.

B. D’Eith (Chair): You came back to us earlier this year with increased amounts, and now we have other non-discretionary activities under your commission that are creating more pressure on your budget. Is that correct?

S. Lowe: That’s correct. The non-discretionary activities are oversight of more SMCs.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’s what’s creating a lot of this upward pressure. Is that correct?

S. Lowe: Yes. It’s a pressure that we’re concerned about. I look at the amounts now, and I see that we are at a level approaching $400,000. I know that I’m asking for $850,000 as a projected sum, but I can only base my ask on the past year’s experience. We don’t see anything letting up in terms of the pressures that are created by the adjudicative reviews and the judicial reviews. Many of those judicial reviews will come to fruition this fiscal year, so that’s where we see that.

Once again, if it happens that we have overestimated that amount, any sums that you recommend and approve will be returned back to treasury.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Stan, can I just clarify that? If we’re at $400,000 right now and you expect there to be another approximately $400,000…. There are four more months left in this fiscal, unless I’m wrong — December, January, February, March. So you’re expecting to spend another $400,000 within the next four months?

S. Lowe: Yeah. Well, our up-to-date amounts for bills and fees owing will…. We know there’s a significant sum. It’s just a matter of getting those contractors, our lawyers, to actually submit their bills. They’re a little slow at that, as you know. But we have scheduled….

B. D’Eith (Chair): I don’t know. I’m pretty fast. [Laughter.]

S. Lowe: What I want to say is that there are scheduled judicial reviews with dates in courts that will be taking place before the end of this fiscal that I know we will billed for.

B. D’Eith (Chair): I just wanted to get my head around the flow of all this.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Sir, thank you for the report.

Just again, refresh my memory, because I’ve asked you this before, but I couldn’t remember the consequences of my question. Recoverability.

S. Lowe: It’s a good question.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Are you or are we or whoever is representing the citizens of British Columbia…? When these funds are expended and the judgments are found to be with us being on the right side, are we not able to recover some of these costs from those places that you have just reiterated have oodles more money than what your budget is?

S. Lowe: Yes, I recall you asking that last year. It’s a very good question, because in light of our success in the courts, you would expect that we could see costs.

We received legal advice on that matter. I think I shared some of it with the committee last year. That is an option that we’ve decided, in the circumstances, is one that we ought not to explore, based on the legal advice that we received. It’s a two-edged sword, Mr. Ashton, right? Those that we lose — it rises that way.

What we don’t want to be is, really, an impediment to having these important questions answered by the courts. I’m just hoping that as we mull through this next set of issues, a lot of those issues on jurisdiction will be resolved. As I say, once that’s done, I hope that our litigation expenditures for judicial reviews will calm down.

[10:50 a.m.]

I’m not sure what the motivation is behind these reviews besides challenging the authority of the office. All I can say is we enjoy a significant level of success as we move along. For me to bring another component of recoverability into it is, I think, counterproductive to the need for us to get the adjudicated guidance from the courts to settle questions once and for all.

What also complicates the picture is the government has made known to our courts that the legislation needs some tinkering, that there’s a lack of clarity in the legislation. In fairness, this litigation arises as a result of that lack of clarity.

We have had submissions in to government for some five years now to consider legislative changes that would promote better clarity. But again, that’s the discretion of government, and the legislative calendar is purely within their purview. When those come through, I can assure you that we will see a marked change in judicial reviews.

It’s the work of my office and the following commissioner to speak very frankly with the next special committee that’s doing an audit of our system, to give them the nuts and bolts of what really needs to be done to the system to avoid the litigation and to avoid the lack of clarity.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Just a follow-up. Have you been audited by the Auditor General?

S. Lowe: Yes. I’ll just go back….

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Sorry, just to interject for a second.

You know, there’s only one taxpayer. With all due respect to the previous government and the current government, if there are recommendations coming from somebody like yourself, these should be brought up with the Minister of Finance and should be brought up with the Auditor General. Because if there are only legislative changes that you’ve stated that you foresee could make a difference, that’s some­thing that we should be doing.

I mean, sir, with all due respect, $800,000 is an awful lot of money every year that flows out of here that a stroke of a pen somewhere could fix. With the utmost respect, I just think that you’ve shown wins on a majority of cases. I would not hesitate to be asking for some recourse that would, maybe, set back some of these requests that come in on a continual basis to see how far the other sides of the equation can push. Again, that’s an awful lot of money we’re talking about.

S. Lowe: Your comments are well taken by me, sir. I appreciate them, as always.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a couple questions.

For clarification, the $350,000 is supplementary funding for this fiscal year, and then subsequently, you’re looking at $300,000 extra — basically, kind of just topping it up this year, and then next year will be at the same level, pretty much. Okay. Thank you for that.

You made the comment about this need for a mandatory civilian oversight. I assume that’s in reference to what you’re talking about right now — the need for this legislation for more clarity. Just to be certain here: if this legislative change happens, will it increase or decrease the number of judicial reviews that are required?

Then my second question, really, is around how quickly these processes are taking. In our court system — in civil resolutions or even criminal — you get to this place of undue delay impacting judgments. Are we at that kind of timeline? What are the timelines around these judicial reviews, and how does it impact police service and public confidence in the police?

S. Lowe: It’s a great question that you ask, because it engages a number of important factors.

There will always be mandatory adjudicative reviews, depending on discipline. Judicial reviews…. What I think I can safely allude to is that whenever a matter in legislation has been brought to our courts, they continue to comment on a lack of clarity in some of the provisions in terms of process and in terms of powers.

[10:55 a.m.]

I can’t comment on the motivation of police associations to bring these judicial reviews, but what I can tell you is that legislative change can most certainly clarify the procedure and define the oversight powers of our office so they no longer become the subject matter of whether or not my exercise of discretion, in these circumstances, is a proper interpretation of this section.

I think there is a palpable frustration amongst stakeholders for legislative change, from all their perspectives, and clarity. I’m not sure what the motivation is with this recent onslaught of interpretive aspects. It will most certainly bring to light, when you review these provisions in judicial reviews, the lack of clarity in the legislation. That will most certainly, in my view, in my opinion, be commented upon.

What will happen in the future in terms of judicial reviews is…. As I say, I can’t comment on the motivations of associations and whether they intend to…. Every time there’s a new legislation that comes in, I always refer to this as kind of a breaking-in period where the legislation is looked at. Often it’s massaged through judicial reviews to make sure that everyone knows that we have the right interpretation.

What I’m going to be proposing is really a huge change. The change that I’ll be proposing to the special committee will be that we take over the investigations and we get out of the adjudicative business — that we appear only as witnesses to the investigations and that a separate entity be set for adjudications. I think that would solve a lot of the problems.

Where we have a gatekeeping in our current role creates somewhat of a recipe for acrimony. What I’m speaking of is novel, but I can tell you that I have the ears of the chief of the Vancouver Police. Adam Palmer has told me that he believes it’s a great idea.

A lot of those in executive policing would like to get out of the investigation. We would be very similar to the IIO — being involved in the investigation of certain public complaints and having a huge ADR component to our work, but not being engaged anymore in the adjudicative end where we have to pay for the adjudicative functions.

Something you may not know and, probably, I should have made even clearer…. When I order an adjudicative review, out of our budget — or out of that budget that you’ve created in dedicated funding — comes the remuneration for the judges and for the counsel that appear in their respective roles in that.

As I say, that’s why I call it a dedicated or restrictive funding area, because it’s something we don’t touch. It’s handled at arm’s length by shared services. We don’t do any of the pointing. We basically come and report every year as to how it’s occurring and what’s going on and what we believe should be the appropriate funding.

T. Redies: Thank you for your presentation.

I have a number of questions. I’m looking at your proposed budget, on page 35. I think we heard that you are looking for $350,000 in incremental funding. I may have missed something, but it looks like it’s $507,000, not $350,000. The $350,000 is just related to the legal expenses. Is that correct?

S. Lowe: This year, this current fiscal year. Then when I allude to $300,000 in the two subsequent years, that incorporates $300,000 for adjudicative and reviews, $88,000 for the inflationary lift for those costs and $118,000 for an FTE. So that’s where we get to the $507,000.

T. Redies: It looks like you blew through your salary, I think, by about $115,000, in terms of the budget from…. You were approved for $1.497 million, and the actual was $1.612 million. So what was that with respect to?

D. Van Swieten: The chart you’re looking at there compares the current year’s budget with the proposed budget for next year. So recalling Stan’s presentation, proposed budget for next year includes the addition of an FTE as well as the inflationary costs. That’s how it ended up at the $115,000. We actually haven’t spent that amount yet.

T. Redies: So is that…? I’m confused, then. You’re saying 2018-2019 proposed estimates. You’re changing, but you are asking for a change that was previously approved at $1.497 million so that you can add this additional salary or additional employee in the remaining months of 2018-19. Is that correct?

D. Van Swieten: In looking at the table, it looks like the heading is actually wrong. That should be saying 2019-20.

[11:00 a.m.]

T. Redies: Okay. That’s where I was confused because it looked like you were going through your budget. Okay. That’s why.

S. Lowe: That’s our fault. I apologize.

T. Redies: No problem. I have a follow-up question on the $800,000. If I remember correctly from last year, the reason why it was $800,000 was because we had the ongoing issue with the chief of police, and that was what had accelerated the cost, the legal cost. I guess what I’m asking now is: why would we bake this in if that is already resolved? Why would we bake in an additional $300,000 in costs going forward?

S. Lowe: Well, part of the cost last year in my submissions was anticipating additional cost. But it wasn’t solely because of the chief. It was really the state of litigation last year also, with the outstanding judicial reviews and adjudicative reviews. But at one point, we did identify, probably in my submissions last year, the fact of the access to funds that the Victoria police department had in terms of legal expend­itures.

The increase has always been measured as from $400,000 to $500,000. Our ask is always based on demonstrated need. So having spent that amount, if it’s not the chief, there will likely be some other matter. I can think of a number of matters ongoing right now that are below the surface that I anticipate will be expenditures.

T. Redies: Outside 2017-2018, which again was this major issue with the chief of police, it looks like you’ve averaged around $400,000 to $500,000 — well, maybe even less than that.

S. Lowe: You’re right.

T. Redies: Again, it seems to me you’re baking in another $300,000 not just this year but for subsequent years, when, really, the $800,000 seems to have been an anomaly based on what you have had to pay out in legal expenses previously.

S. Lowe: I think that has a lot to do with the dedicated nature or the restricted nature of the funding. I make that request in light of the fact that any of those sums not spent will be returned to treasury. It’s not our money. It’s administered through another source.

Having said that, though, one thing that we’re focused on this year is seven judicial reviews that have been scheduled and are coming to fruition. We anticipate…. What we’re saying is the remaining judicial reviews and adjudicative matters…. We can very well see the additional $350,000 being spent. I’m hoping you’re correct. I hope we overestimate, and then the end result is that our request for access would just be reduced through the restrictive nature.

I can also tell you that last year, we had the highest number of adjudicative reviews. It wasn’t just the Elsner matter. We had a higher number of adjudicative reviews than we had in previous years. So if you look at the…. I can go back to the chart of adjudicative reviews. But you will see that in ’17-18, we had 12, compared to, as you can see before, seven to four. This is on page 24. So it ebbs and flows in terms of all those items. But 12 was last year. Eight appointments in 2017, one review on the record and three public hearings. That doesn’t include the judicial review component.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Stan, if I may, one of the reasons that there’s a bit of push-back on this is because if we approve funding for any of the commissioners, that’s money that is coming out of the general legislative budget that can’t be allocated to other things. So you have to understand that from the committee’s point of view, when we’re discussing this, we’re like: “Okay. Do we want $400,000, $500,000 being allocated when that could be allocated somewhere else? Or should we wait to see if there’s a need and then get an amendment to that?” That’s part of the rationale for what happened last year. If there’s a demonstrated need, then sure, come back. Let’s do it.

[11:05 a.m.]

It’s tough when you see the historic need of $300,000, $400,000, $500,000, let’s say, over a number of years and now, all of a sudden, it’s $800,000. That’s why, I think, there are these types of questions. We have to be careful not to allocate money, because other sources might need that, and then it’s not there. That’s the rationale.

S. Lowe: I completely understand that rationale, and the proposed method of us coming back with demonstrated need is equally viable. I completely get that. Conceptually, I take a different view, because it’s restricted or dedicated funding that really has no resonation with you. It’s a lot, from your perspective. I get that now. I see what you’re saying.

I’m prepared to, in light of what you’ve made clear to me…. This committee has always worked very well with us on demonstrated need, and if you take a position that that’s an intermediate position to fund or to increase on an intermediate basis, I think that’s palatable, very palatable, from our perspective, because you’ve always supported us.

I think perhaps the $850,000 was one that we wanted from an ability of not having to worry about the funding as we approach the close of fiscal. But the comments that you make of being supportive in demonstrating need are heartening.

B. D’Eith (Chair): A little bit more mundane, in a sense, but just in regards to page 38, which sets out the corporate shared service budget, Peter and a number of us had talked about the fact that…. And maybe Dave. This is a Dave issue, I guess. It’s this idea that it’s tough sometimes for us to get our heads around the shared costs and how those are allocated between the different commissioners. There is a chart here on 38 which does set that out. But I was wondering if the committee members had any request to Dave as to maybe more detail or other things that we could have.

P. Milobar: Pie charts are wonderful, I guess, but if, moving forward, we could get something similar to maybe some of spreadsheet just for the shared services, we can kind of see the full breakdown of all the agencies. Even reading this, I’m assuming it’s plus $73,000 for CSS space — that’s your space — versus the other spaces.

To have the five, considering CSS is one as well, all lumped together on a bit of a spreadsheet just to track everything would make it a little simpler for some of us, I think, to see the overall big picture of that 100 percent of that building. It seems to come up every single time with all of the different groups.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Dave, do you want to respond to that?

D. Van Swieten: Yeah, that’d be great. I think it’s the timing of the presentations this year. As you’re aware, corporate shared services does reside with the Office of the Ombudsperson, and when Jay’s presenting tomorrow, he does provide more detailed information and spreadsheets about the corporate shared services expenditure. So that information will be available tomorrow. Unfortunately, it’s not presented ahead of the three offices that also participate in the corporate shared services model.

We’ll have that information tomorrow, and if that meets the bar for what you’re looking for and gives enough detail, great. If you’re looking for more, we’re happy to build something and provide it.

T. Redies: That would be great. Off the top of your head, what was the…? I’m looking at page 38. That’s, I presume, for next year, the budget. Off the top of your head, do you know what the total budget was for this year?

D. Van Swieten: The total budget is a bit misleading because it includes recoveries from the other three offices. I think the total budget for this year is in about the $690,000 range. Next year it’ll be at about $750,000. Again, we’ll see these numbers tomorrow when Jay arrives.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Any other questions?

M. Dean: Thank you for your presentation. I was interested when you did start talking about a bit more detail around sexual assaults. Is that information that it will be possible to come and speak to you about or get more information about at another point in time?

[11:10 a.m.]

S. Lowe: What happens is there’s a…. Currently, and this is a revision that I’m hoping to address, our office has a duty of confidentiality. What we do at the end of the year is we provide a list of all those substantiated matters with some of the information about them but anonymized so that nobody would know. That’s about as far as we can go. I’m happy to speak to you, in a general sense, at any time about those.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions?

M. Dean: Are you anticipating a need for an increase in budget in a couple of years’ time if Surrey does move from RCMP to a municipal force?

S. Lowe: I think it’s speculative now. Of course, if they became a part of the municipal policing, most certainly. I think that we’re responsive. I was going to alert you to that, but you’re all well aware of that.

In these current submissions, no, we’re not going to be. But we’re preparing for that. We’re providing information and so forth.

M. Dean: The other institutions that are in those RCMP-regulated areas — would that need to be a different decision for those to be brought under your jurisdiction?

S. Lowe: Each municipality would have to decide if they want to continue with that type of policing through the RCMP contract.

Only Surrey, if they successfully opt out and create the infrastructure that’s required in order to begin as a police department…. We’ll be notified of an effective start date, I’m sure. With that, we’ll be able to advise the committee if that indeed is to flow.

M. Dean: Would that include institutions as well as community policing? Would that all be automatic?

S. Lowe: Yes. What’ll happen is that if it’s Surrey, it’s all of Surrey. It would be their SMCs, their special municipal constables. They would all have to remove themselves. The SMCs are still appointed under the RCMP Act for areas, but they don’t fall under our jurisdiction. They’re not covered for discipline under the RCMP Act, but they can appoint them.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Any other questions?

Well, on behalf of the committee, Stan, I just wanted to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your commitment to what you’ve done as a commissioner, over the many years that you’re been in this position, and for your clear passion for making sure that our public is protected and that the proper adjudication is done in all respects.

I wanted to invite you after to come and have a picture with us, if that’s all right. We can share that with you. If there’s anything….

Dan, did you want to say something?

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Ditto, for me, doesn’t say enough, sir. I just want to thank you again, the individuals like yourself and the people that you work with that make a real difference. You’re a check and a balance in the system that, unfortunately, isn’t fair either way sometimes.

Again, it’s people like you that make a real difference. Thank you very much for your service. Whatever the future brings, we wish you very well with what you’re up to in the next X amount of time.

S. Lowe: Thank you so much. I really appreciate that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.

Okay. So we’ll take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 11:13 a.m. to 11:18 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): I’d like a motion to go in camera.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): So moved.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 11:19 a.m. to 11:25 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): I would like to have a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:25 a.m.