The committee met at 3:01 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): First up we have — the only one up today — the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s supplementary funding request. If I could turn it over to the commissioner for going through the letter and the ask, and then we can have a discussion with members.

Supplementary Funding Requests

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION
AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

M. McEvoy: First of all, I wanted to express my thanks to you, Mr. Chair, and the committee members for convening on this lovely Monday afternoon to discuss our supplemen­tary budget submission that’s set out in our letter of August 14.

My deputy, oline Twiss, and I are actually in Prince Edward Island this evening at our annual federal-provincial-territorial meeting of Information and Privacy Commissioners. We of course are joined in Victoria by Dave Van Swieten, our executive director of corporate shared services.

I begin with the question asked by the Clerk of the committee about whether the subject of today’s meeting could wait until our annual budget and service plan in late October. In my view, it could not. That is because if my office is to meet its commitment to you to rebuild the B.C. lobbyist registry system in a timely and effective way, it is necessary to expedite an advancement of capital funds. I do not and did not believe, Mr. Chair, that it would have been proper for me to spend beyond the $200,000 capital funding allocated by the committee in this fiscal year for this purpose, a limit which we have almost reached because of the speed with which we are tackling this project.

Now that this project has substantially progressed, I am better positioned to apprise you of its development and fiscal status and explain the urgency of this request. By way of background, in B.C., individuals who are paid to communicate with public office holders for the purposes of influencing them are required to register those activities in the lobbyists registry. There are over 3,600 lobbyists registered in B.C.

You’ll recall the recent passage of the Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2018. It was necessary to rebuild the registry system to meet the requirements of the new act. Our preliminary plan was to do this over two years. To that end, in December 2018, your committee recommended an appropriation of capital expenditures of $400,000 spread equally over the 2019-20 and 2020-21 fiscal years for that pFurpose.

When I appeared before you in May 2019, I reported that my federal counterpart, Nancy Bélanger, had agreed to license the use of this federal registry system to us at no cost. This is a significant benefit and a good deal for British Columbia. The federal registry has advanced search functionality that will ensure this system is as transparent as the legislation demands. It allows citizens interested in lobbying activities to perform relevant search queries based on many data elements collected in both registration and monthly reports.

Users will also be able to access real-time historical and trend analysis reports on subject matters of lobbying, government entities being lobbied and monthly communication reports. We are able to take advantage of the fact that this search functionality was the product of extensive consultations and focus groups that the federal commissioner engaged in across multiple user groups.

[3:05 p.m.]

The federal lobbyists registry also contains a critical notification system built in to a dashboard. This dashboard provides lobbyists with a single point to review what is due and when. The dashboard contains a feature that allows the registry manager to communicate with lobbyists through documented notes, and the notification system provides reminders, warnings and late reporting notices — in short, ensuring compliance with the law.

The benefits of these many features will make it easier for British Columbians to see who’s lobbying government on what subject, and they will support lobbyists in complying with the registration and reporting requirement.

The final advantage to licensing the federal lobbyist architecture is also significant. It means the rebuilding of the registry can be completed in one fiscal year instead of two. These critical functions of the federal system and the timing of their implementation would not have been accomplished by rebuilding the current registry.

When I appeared before you this past May, I shared with you that the speedier implementation of the registry would likely require advancing next year’s capital funds into this fiscal year. I also indicated that the timing of this ask was awaiting a further refinement of the estimates of the work needed to adapt the federal registry to B.C.’s needs. With this estimate now complete, I have submitted to you a supplementary budget request to the committee for the 2019-2020 fiscal year.

The request, as you will see, has two parts. First to move the approved $200,000 in capital for the ORL registry development from next fiscal year into this one. Second, for an additional $100,000 in capital costs to complete the registry adaptation. Approving both requests would permit us to continue to adapt the federal lobbyists registry to our requirements here in B.C. The request for an additional $100,000 in capital costs is necessary for the additional time it will take for the developers to work on the more sophisticated system.

I submit to you that the spending of $500,000 to adapt the federal registry is a bargain for British Columbia. It will ensure a system whose functions will meet the requirements of transparency demanded by the new legislation and will promote compliance.

I thank you for your attention and, again, meeting this afternoon, and I look forward to any questions that you may have.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation. That is good news — being able to license the federal registry. That’s great.

My question, before I open it up to the members, is really simple. If you were going to build a brand-new system for the $400,000…. Why is it more expensive to take a free system and adapt it? It just seems to me counterintuitive. I don’t understand why you need more money. Wouldn’t it be less money if you were getting a free system and not building a brand-new system?

M. McEvoy: Well, to be direct about it, the initial estimate of $400,000…. When we looked at what I’ve described as a rebuild of this system, it became apparent to us, as we got further into it and looked at what the requirements of the new system were, that that was an underestimate. I can’t tell you, with certainty, precisely what the cost of the rebuild would be. It is fair to say that…. I am advised it would be well in excess of $500,000.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Well, that makes sense. That was sort of the source of my confusion. It would seem to me that if we were getting a new database or a new system at no cost, that would be a cost saving. What I’m hearing from you is that, in fact, rebuilding the system would have cost a lot more and that it was underestimated. In fact, this is a better solution and something that you can do quicker.

M. McEvoy: It is indeed. I would add to that, Mr. Chair, that there are some common elements between B.C.’s system and the federal system. One of them would be the monthly reporting requirements, which are a critical feature of the new system.

Beyond that, there are other requirements, as well, in B.C. that don’t exist federally and do have to be added on and adapted. Those will take some additional resources. For example, there’s the issue of gift reporting. Lobbyists have to report if they’re operating on contingency fees. That’s something that doesn’t exist federally. There are a series of other requirements that are additions to what is set out in the federal legislation.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great.

It’s difficult for me to manage the meeting, not being physically there. So maybe you could help me. I just wanted to open it up to the members for questions. Maybe start with the members who are physically in attendance in the chamber, and then we can move to the phone.

[3:10 p.m.]

R. Coleman: During your presentation, you said that you couldn’t roll this into your budget going into 2019-20, that you needed to do the appropriation now, during the middle of this fiscal year, as an additional cost. Can you tell me why that is actually necessary if you have the appropriation over three years already?

M. McEvoy: It would be over two years that we originally asked for and have now advanced to the point, and we are moving more rapidly — I think that’s good news — than originally thought to bring things into force.

We have now exhausted the capital fund in this fiscal year. Essentially, if we were not advanced the capital moneys now, we would have to stop work on the project, which would mean that we couldn’t recommence basically for another six months. And as you would probably appreciate, if you down tools, it’s not just as simple, as easy, as picking up tools. There would be some refamiliarizing, and so on, with the project. So that would, in all likelihood, delay matters more and add to costs. That’s why we want to advance the funds now.

R. Coleman: The note that we have here is that for 2018-19 and ’20-21…. That’s $400,000 for this project. And then, on the second page, you want to move up to $200,000 and add another $100,000 in capital costs to be approved in the current fiscal year as well. Is that correct?

M. McEvoy: That is correct.

R. Coleman: What you want to do is take $200,000 out of next year’s fiscal plan and add an additional $100,000 into this fiscal plan. So you’d be spending all $500,000 over the two years.

M. McEvoy: That is correct — over one year.

R. Coleman: The reason for the increase in the capital cost is that you just found after you started the project that it’s going to cost more.

M. McEvoy: That is correct.

R. Coleman: When you bid, when you did the project, how did you price it to get to your $400,000?

M. McEvoy: We originally started with…. I’m told by the technical people that it starts with an estimate. At that point, following that, there is, if I could describe it this way, a more refined look under the hood. When that was looked at, we received then what I would describe as a more solid quotation which firmed the figures up.

R. Coleman: When did the more detailed, so-called look under the hood take place? Prior to start or after you’d already started?

M. McEvoy: That would have been after we had started.

R. Coleman: You got partway into the project and found you needed the money sooner and you needed more. Would that be right?

M. McEvoy: I’m not sure that’s correct, if I could clarify the process. We had an estimate based on rebuilding the current system before the committee. I think I explained that at the time — that we would be coming back once those matters were looked at in greater detail and we could confirm a firmer figure. I said that we would come back and that we would also finalize the timing as well.

R. Coleman: If you had an estimate of the percentage of work that’s been completed to get to 100 percent, what stage would you be at now on the percentage of work completed?

M. McEvoy: We believe we have another three months of work to complete the project.

R. Coleman: What percentage of work is that? Is it 50 percent left to do? Forty percent, 30 percent to do? You can’t absorb it. You’re saying you can’t absorb it into your budget. That’s why you need the money moved forward. So what percentage of the actual project is completed or far enough along?

M. McEvoy: Right. We believe at this point it’s about 20 percent complete. The balance of the 80 percent would be completed between October and December of this year.

R. Coleman: Okay. Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Rich.

Anyone else in the room there that would like to ask a question?

M. Dean: Could we receive some kind of assurance that there’s not going to be an overrun and that if we move the $200,000 from next year’s budget into this year’s fiscal, there isn’t going to be an ask coming after the end of March this year?

M. McEvoy: I am confident that this amount of money will be sufficient to complete the project.

[3:15 p.m.]

R. Coleman: It’s $200,000 plus another $100,000.

M. Dean: Yeah. In this fiscal.

If the project comes in at, say, $450,000 in total, rather than $500,000 in total, the surplus $50,000 then just goes back to treasury. Is that right?

M. McEvoy: Yes, indeed. That is correct.

M. Dean: Okay. Thank you.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assem­bly): Dave Van Swieten wanted to add some information as well.

D. Van Swieten: Just building on what the commissioner shared, we’re talking strictly capital funding at this point. What we haven’t completed or gotten estimates on is the conversion from the old data into the new system, which would be the operating side of the equation. We’re going to have an assessment on that likely by the time we return to this committee next month. I just wanted to be sure that the answer was complete, as you understood it.

R. Coleman: Are you aware of whether this request would have to go for access to contingencies in this fiscal year?

D. Van Swieten: I’m not sure how the government would manage a request of capital funds.

R. Coleman: Well, there are two funds: capital and operating. The capital is the same. If you go over, then they have a contingency. The contingency could be used up by now. You don’t know what’s available?

D. Van Swieten: We don’t.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk): Right. If I might, just with respect to the question that Rich has asked, we tend to convey to the Minister of Finance, as Chair of Treasury Board, the decisions and recommendations of this committee. Typically, the government has been able to implement the recommendations of the committee for supplementary funding in a particular fiscal year from contingencies, but that would be a decision within government as to where the funding would emerge. If a formal additional supplementary vote would be required, for example, it would be an option that they would advise on.

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

Is there anyone on the phone who’d like to ask a question?

R. Leonard: My question relates to…. Is the work being done in-house, or has some firm been engaged to do the work? And will this be a further addition to work? Just how is it unfolding?

M. McEvoy: Right. The work itself is being done by Sierra Systems. They are the contractor. We don’t have our own in-house technical people to kind of oversee and guide and make sure that the thing is being done to spec. So we’ve reached outside for some assistance — actually to our federal colleagues in Ottawa, who are assisting in that process.

We are also being supported by the Ministry of Attorney General, which has helped with the original procurement as well as the ticketing system that we are engaged in with Sierra Systems. That’s essentially how the project is being moved along.

R. Leonard: You pointed out that the operation and some further work relating to operation, as opposed to the capital buildout of it…. Is that going to be something that will be achieved in-house, or is that going to be a further additional cost in future years just because of how it’s being put together now?

M. McEvoy: The transitioning, which I referenced in the letter, actually would be done in conjunction with Sierra Systems. As I’ve noted, that’s actually an operational cost. I’m confident we can absorb that within our existing budget. I don’t actually see coming back to the committee for those operational funds.

R. Leonard: Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Anyone else on the phone?

R. Leonard: I have one more question. Now, you made the point that a delay will incur costs because it would have to be restarted if there wasn’t an opportunity to continue apace. Can you give me an order of magnitude of what we’re talking about?

M. McEvoy: I am told it’s probably in the neighbourhood of about $50,000.

R. Leonard: Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Any other questions, on the phone? Any other questions generally, or comments? Okay.

Kate, we maybe should go in camera and discuss this?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk): Yes, I’d recommend that, Mr. Chair. We’ll just allow Mr. Van Swieten and also the commissioner and deputy commissioner to sign off on the call. If you agree, Mr. Chair, we’ll take perhaps a two-minute recess.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Before you go, thank you very much for the presentation. We’ll consider this, and we’ll get back to you.

M. McEvoy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee.

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’ll take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 3:20 p.m. to 3:21 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk): Mr. Van Swieten has now left the Douglas Fir, Members.

Before we begin, I guess the first step would be to have a motion for the committee to meet in camera.

It looks like Dan Ashton has moved that motion.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 3:21 p.m. to 3:33 p.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

Votes on Supplementary Funding

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION
AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

B. D’Eith (Chair): Is there someone, Kate, to do…?

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): Yeah, Mr. Chair. I’ve got the first motion.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. Go ahead.

D. Ashton (Deputy Chair): I move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services recommend that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Registrar of Lobbyists be granted access to supplementary funding up to $300,000 for capital expenditures in 2019/2020 to implement a new lobbyist registration.]

Motion approved.

B. D’Eith (Chair): There was a second motion. Does someone have that?

M. Dean: Bob, I’ve got the second motion.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Go ahead, Mitzi.

M. Dean: I move:

[That the Chair advise the Minister of Finance, as Chair of Treasury Board, of the recommendation adopted earlier today and that the Committee’s recommendation be formally recorded and included in its forthcoming report on its annual review of statutory office budgets later this year.]

Motion approved.

[3:35 p.m.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Okay. I’ll make sure that everyone gets a copy of that letter so you can see that we’ve taken care of those issues around next year’s capital budget and also about a progress report. We’ll make sure that that’s in the letter, and we’ll go from there.

Anything else?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk): May I just, for the information of members, advise that with the resumption of the Legislature on October 7, we also recognize that we have two pending reports of your committee that will be presented to the Legislature. We will be in touch with the Chair and the Deputy Chair, but just for the committee’s information, we have the interim report on statutory offices, which was released in July, as well as your budget consultation report from earlier this summer. Both of those reports are expected to come forward in the next week or two.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Excellent.

Okay. Is there anything else?

Could I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 3:36 p.m.