The committee met at 12:09 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay, it’s the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Today we’re starting the review and updates of the statutory officers.

[12:10 p.m.]

The first statutory officer that we’re meeting with today is the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, who is basically going to give us a check-in on where this office is at with its work following the meetings that we had in February.

With that, I will turn it over to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, Victoria Gray, to take it from here.

Financial and Operational Updates
from Statutory Officers

OFFICE OF THE CONFLICT
OF INTEREST COMMISSIONER

V. Gray: Thank you for this opportunity to talk about the Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s Office. Also online is Carol Hoyer. That’s our office’s executive coordinator. She has the greatest familiarity with budget matters and hopefully, if you have any questions there, can help you.

Well, nice to see…. I can’t see everybody. I can see most of you. But it’s nice. I had a chance to meet all of you recently, in connection with an annual financial disclosure, so I had my 2021 meetings with each of the 87 MLAs, and all of those were virtual meetings.

There were four topics I wanted to cover today. First is a short reminder of the role of my office. Second, some discussion about budget and the likelihood of an overage. Third, some discussion about our work in 2020 and the first five months of 2021. And finally, briefly, my expectations for our office after pandemic restrictions are removed.

First, a quick review of the role of my office. My office is the smallest statutory office, but we have an important role. We seek to maintain the integrity of the members and to enhance the public perception of the integrity of the decisions of the Legislature….

J. Routledge (Chair): Excuse me, Victoria. We’re having a hard time hearing you.

V. Gray: I’m sorry. Is that any better?

J. Routledge (Chair): Let’s try it again, maybe slower and louder to make up for the fact that we can’t hear you that well.

V. Gray: Okay. I’m sorry. I started saying there were four topics I wanted to address. First is a reminder of the role of my office. Second, some discussion on our budget and the likelihood of an overage. Third, our work in 2020 and the first five months of 2021. And finally, briefly, my expectations for our office after removal of the pandemic restrictions.

[12:15 p.m.]

Our office is the smallest statutory office. We have an important role. We seek to maintain the integrity of the members and to enhance the public perception of the integrity of the decisions of the Legislature and its various decision-making entities. Our role is described in the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act.

Our work focuses on three things. First, helping MLAs to understand the conflict rules and assisting them to comply by giving advice, often in writing, and often in short time frames when issues arise. Second, helping MLAs navigate the financial disclosure requirements of the act. And third, responding to complaints and requests for public opinions. Those requests and complaints can come from MLAs or from members of the public. In addition, we work with comparable offices across Canada in coordinating the development of best practices.

I’ll turn to our budget. Our 2020 annual report is still in draft, but I do have some figures for you. I’ll refer to the fiscal year ending a couple of months ago, on March 31, 2021. Our budget remains the smallest of all the statutory offices. For the fiscal year ending a couple of months ago, our budget appropriation was $734,000. The actual cost was $631,329. The difference of about $102,600 was primarily due to the absence of travel and professional services expenses.

Ordinarily, my office participates in national and international conferences. In 2020 and so far in 2021, the conferences have proceeded virtually rather than in person. One conference later this year, late 2021, may proceed in person, so we may incur travel expenses for attending that. But because of the pandemic, our travel expenses for 2020 and so far in 2021 have been less than budgeted.

Our most significant budget items are salaries and benefits. I work on a 75 percent of full-time basis. Two of the three staff members are full-time, and one works 60 percent time. So the staff time is 2.6 FTEs, and including me, we are 3.35 FTEs.

The Legislature is our landlord, and our office space is at the red brick building at 421 Menzies. Prior to the pandemic, members found this location convenient for meetings, and we also enjoy the proximity to the Legislative Assembly. Our discretionary expenses remain low in large part because of the reasonable rent we pay.

Apart from the work related to MLA financial disclosure, our work is driven by complaints and requests for opinions. As such, it is highly unpredictable what will come in the door and with what degree of urgency.

Conducting inquiries and delivering formal public written opinions is very time-consuming but necessary. The public is entitled to know that the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act is understood and applied by MLAs in their work. I have not yet been required to investigate a complaint and issue a formal public written opinion. I know from my experience as a lawyer and judge that such investigations and opinions call upon the office’s resources in a significant way.

Maintaining public confidence in our MLAs arises from the important upstream work of assisting MLAs to prevent conflicts from arising and to manage unavoidable conflicts. We do this by providing information, guidance and advice in a timely way. So the caveat, which my office has routinely applied to budget requests, is that we may need to come back to this committee if we need additional resources in order to deal with an unexpectedly high volume of complaints requiring inquiries and opinions, or if the office is the subject of another application for judicial review.

In the meeting back in February, we were asked how significant the risk was that I would be coming back to request additional resources. This is very difficult to predict. It depends on the nature of any complaints or requests for public opinions.

[12:20 p.m.]

Some of them — and, perhaps, many of them — can be handled within our budget. An example of that is the public opinion issued by acting Commissioner Smith regarding then MLA, now minister, Kahlon.

Other complaints might result in significant expense, such as an investigation requiring my office to retain outside legal counsel. For example, in early 2001 — so 20 years ago — former Commissioner Oliver issued an opinion that former Premier Clark had influenced a decision regarding approval of a casino. Commissioner Oliver hired legal counsel for the questioning of witnesses as part of his investigation.

About five years ago former Commissioner Fraser issued an opinion that exclusive fundraising events and annual payments to Premier Christy Clark were not contrary to the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act. An organization named Democracy Watch challenged that decision, and the challenge proceeded to judicial review hearings in both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2017. The B.C. Supreme Court concluded that a decision of a conflict of interest commissioner is not subject to judicial review. The Court of Appeal did not address the merits of the appeal on the basis that it was moot because Christy Clark had ceased to be an MLA and Premier following an election.

For both the Glen Clark investigation and the Democracy Watch court hearings, my office requested and obtained funding additional to the usual budget. A very rough estimate would be that my office has sought additional funding every five or so years.

I’ll turn now to the work of my office. A significant part of our work relates to managing the financial disclosure obligations for MLAs. This work includes preparation of the public disclosure statements, which will be posted online through the Clerk’s office, and notices of material change.

The election call affected this work in 2020. I was in the process of annual meetings with MLAs when the election was called. I had met with 36 of the 87 MLAs. The dissolution of the Legislature by the election call meant that there were no MLAs to meet with me, no MLAs to seek advice or be the subject of complaints and no need for MLAs to file notices of material change.

We took the opportunity, during the election period, to revise and update the bulletins we make available to MLAs. They are on our website. The bulletins regarding sponsored travel and regarding letters of reference and support were updated. Many of the cabinet members of the 41st parliament retired, both from cabinet and as MLAs. As a result, I prepared a new bulletin regarding responsibilities post–political office.

In contrast to 2020, I have now had my 2021 meetings with each of the 87 MLAs. The forms used by MLAs for financial disclosure are in need of technical upgrading. The forms are almost ten years old. We plan to update them, and we hope that we can do that within our existing budget.

In 2019, we had 75 requests for advice from MLAs. We had about the same number, 76, in 2020. In the first five months of 2021, we have already had 59 such requests. That’s over 75 percent of the figure for all 12 months of 2020. I attribute the large number of requests for opinions to the large number of new MLAs, new members of cabinet and new parliamentary secretaries, all settling into their new positions and ensuring compliance with the conflict-of-interest legislation.

[12:25 p.m.]

In 2020, we had 11 requests for an inquiry. That was similar to the figure of nine for 2019. So far in 2021, we have only had two. I don’t have an explanation for this, unless it is that people are focused on the pandemic or, hopefully, that everyone thinks our MLAs are behaving appropriately.

So far I have not been required to investigate a complaint or conduct an inquiry. There have been concerns raised by the public which did not meet the threshold for me to conduct an investigation. Historically, there has usually been about one public investigation or inquiry per year. Of course, I do not wish an investigation on any member.

Our office has worked collaboratively with other offices and agencies on matters of shared interest. For example, we work with the office of the lobbyists registrar to coordinate our brochure on MLAs accepting gifts and benefits with that office’s brochure about lobbyists reporting on gifts they provide to MLAs. We worked with the Clerk’s office and the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office on issues leading to the online posting of members’ public disclosure statements.

We’re participating in a statutory officers committee on the implementation of DRIPA, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We also participate in meetings with the other statutory officers on issues of common concern. We make presentations to interested MLAs and to incoming legislative interns. We anticipate that at some point in the future we will be consulting extensively with the Ministry of Attorney General and the legislative committee to update the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, either in accordance with the legislative review in 2012 or for a new legislative review.

Our continuing work includes the timely response to requests from members for opinions and assistance and from the public about possible complaints. I cannot discuss the opinions given to members in any detail, because they are confidential to members. Our practice is not to publicize inquiries from the public unless they lead to an inquiry and public opinion. Our priorities and goals remain working to preserve the integrity of the members of the Legislature and the public perception of them and our provincial government through providing timely, confidential advice to members and timely and thorough responses to complaints.

I turn, finally, to the question of the impact on my office of the lifting of restrictions imposed by the pandemic — something we are all looking forward to, I imagine. We have adapted well to the need for remote work. I anticipate that my staff and I will continue to do a significant amount of work remotely but that we will work as needed from the Menzies Street office.

I also anticipate that in the future, MLAs will have the option of attending their annual meetings with me either virtually or in person. I expect that many MLAs will choose to meet virtually. I don’t expect any changes to our budget, related to changes in the amount of our remote work.

In conclusion, it’s been my honour to serve since January 6, 2020, as commissioner. It’s been my delight to work with the staff of the office, who are experienced, professional, good-natured, cooperative, creative and fun.

Thanks for your attention, and I’ll try to answer any questions you may have, with Carol’s assistance.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Commissioner Gray.

Do any of the members have any questions?

P. Alexis: Not a question but just a comment.

Thank you for the comprehensive report that you sent along — easy to follow — and everything else. So thank you for all the good work that you do.

V. Gray: Thank you very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): Anyone else?

[12:30 p.m.]

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Commissioner Gray, thanks very much. Excellent report. You started off by talking about the budget, and I must’ve missed your comment on that. Is your budget forecast expected to be within your forecast that you presented in February?

V. Gray: Yes. In fact, less.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Less. Okay.

V. Gray: We were over $100,000 less in the fiscal year just ended. That’s because of primarily travel and professional…. We haven’t had to hire any lawyers in the outside professional system. So yes, within budget.

L. Doerkson: Just a quick a question. I know it’s hard, obviously, to project or anticipate what kind of cases you might get into, but with respect to the two cases you were talking about, what kind of a cost were those? Can you give some kind of indication of what extra cost there was attached to those?

V. Gray: I don’t have that information.

Carol, do you have any idea?

It predates both me and Carol, I’m afraid.

L. Doerkson: Okay. No problem. I was just curious what the cost associated with a study that thick might be.

V. Gray: Yeah. My guess would be that with the Glen Clark it was very significant. I would guess it would’ve been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I would guess that in the judicial reviews, it was more in the total $100,000 range. That would be my guess as a former lawyer and judge, although it could well be out of date.

Carol, do you have any better numbers?

C. Hoyer: I did some digging, and it came to about $30,000 back in 2013.

J. Routledge (Chair): Do we have any other questions?

Well, why don’t I just wrap it up by thanking you for your patience with the technological challenges and for your very thorough report. I think you’ve covered all the bases. Yes, I think it’s very clear to us what you do, the importance of it, what it costs and what the expectations are.

Thank you very much. With that, we will let you go.

V. Gray: My pleasure. Thanks very much.

Budget Consultation Planning

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. So we are running a bit early. The suggestion from Jennifer is that we use this time to check in on our public consultations.

Okay. Over to you, Jennifer.

J. Arril (Clerk of Committees): Perhaps members might like to entertain a motion to go in camera?

J. Routledge (Chair): Oh, sorry. Ben has moved that we move into in camera.

Any debate, discussion?

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 12:34 p.m. to 1 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): If everyone is ready, I’ll welcome our next presenters, from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Commissioner, this is your opportunity to check in with us. I believe you’ve received some guidance from the Clerk’s office — basically, to be guided by our report from February and to highlight areas of interest. I think that specifically, you were asked if you had any observations about how a restart after COVID would applicable. If you could answer that as well.

Financial and Operational Updates
from Statutory Officers

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION
AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

M. McEvoy: Good afternoon, hon. Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the committee. I trust this afternoon finds you all well, on a day when we recognize, observe and celebrate National Indigenous Peoples Day. It’s an opportunity, I think, to reflect on actions we take towards reconciliation in the work that we do every day.

Today I would like to acknowledge that I am standing on the traditional territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, also known as the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

Joining me this afternoon are Deputy Commissioners oline Twiss and Jeannette Van Den Bulk. Also here, as always, to assist is David Van Swieten, executive director of shared services, who serves in this capacity for the four officers of the Legislature headquartered at 947 Fort Street.

Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to meet and discuss the work of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the office of the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia. The opportunity to do this, in addition to the once-a-year budget submission, is deeply appreciated, and it reflects the importance we place on our own accountability to the public through this legislative committee.

Before reviewing the recent work of our office, I want to first address your request, Chair, for an update on office preparations in light of health restrictions being gradually eased. In March of 2020, our operation shifted quickly in order to adapt to the changes wrought by the COVID pandemic. The majority of our staff commenced working from home, and measures were taken to ensure that that was done safely and securely. This has continued to be the case today.

Looking ahead, our leadership team is assessing the short-, medium- and long-term operational needs of the office in determining the shape of our workplace going forward. We will consider the views of our entire staff on matters such as office-sharing and work-at-home options as we assess the best use of the dollars provided by the Legislature. We’ll do that in a considered and careful manner. It is, as you will appreciate, a work in progress, and I will be in a position to report in more detail at our November presentation.

I would now like to turn to some of the recent work and accomplishments of the OIPC. I’ve now had the opportunity to review the preliminary numbers from last fiscal year and can share that overall, the volume of files received by our office continued at about the same rate as in previous years. It’s a tribute to our team that we were able to maintain continuity of service to the public and process those files received commensurate with previous years, despite a restructured work environment.

Our office continues to respond to the many questions by the public and the media about how our privacy and access statutes apply in the pandemic. This is not surprising, given that COVID-19 has generated many new issues engaging both privacy and access. At its outset, the pandemic posed challenges for access-to-information operations for a number of public bodies. In some cases, the move to working from home, for many public bodies, initially made it difficult for them to gather hard-copy records.

[1:05 p.m.]

In light of these extraordinary circumstances, as you may know, in March 2020, I provided public bodies additional time of up to 30 days to process access-to-information requests. This extension only applied to requests received between March 1 and May 15 of 2020. After that, public bodies were expected to adjust to a new normal, which included the ability to use time extension mechanisms available under FIPPA if that were appropriate. Time extensions can support public bodies in responding to requests, but they must, of course, be considered alongside one of the act’s key purposes, which is to ensure public body accountability.

I’m aware that some public bodies, particularly those on the front lines of responding to the pandemic, have found it challenging to meet their FOI obligations. At the same time, these are often the same public bodies whose actions are of most concern to the public during the time of pandemic and, therefore, warrant transparency. My staff and I continue to utilize the balancing mechanisms in the legislation to support both access operations and the act’s purposes.

COVID-19 has also, of course, touched upon issues relating to the protection of people’s personal information. Vaccine passports and related matters have put matters of privacy protection squarely before my office, as well as society as a whole.

These issues are not unique to British Columbia and, in fact, in many instances, are linked national and international considerations. For this reason, we are deeply engaged in discussions with regulatory colleagues, nationally and internationally, as we consider approaches to the challenges we are commonly confronting.

Just a few weeks ago, together with our federal, provincial and territorial counterparts, we released a joint resolution and statement on the issue of vaccine passports. We reinforce the fact that passports could be a very useful tool to getting our lives back on a more normal footing but that privacy needs to be front and centre if such instruments are to have the confidence and trust of Canadians.

I’ve also had conversations with my fellow B.C. officers, Jay Chalke and Kasari Govender, on this issue, as it relates to the fairness and human rights of British Columbians. I think it’s clear to all of us that based on discussions in public forums, it is safe to say British Columbians care deeply about these issues.

Our office’s collaboration on these matters also extends beyond our national borders. The relationships British Columbia has built with our counterparts in the Asia-Pacific region have proven especially important. I would like to thank, and restate our appreciation to, the committee for its continuing support of our role as secretariat to the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities. B.C. plays a prominent and respected role on this international stage.

Last week APPA held its 55th forum, hosted virtually by the Republic of Korea’s Personal Information Protection Commission and assisted by our office as APPA’s secretariat. Nineteen member organizations and approximately 100 attendees participated in this three-day forum of enforcement discussions, jurisdictional updates and collaboration on many of the key privacy issues we face today, including biometrics, the impact of COVID-19 on privacy issues, facial recognition technology and how to promote global interoperability in data protection. The issue of interoperability is of particular interest to British Columbians, as we find ourselves in the midst of legislative reviews of both our public and private sector legislation. Our office was also honoured to be named host of the 56th forum, to be held virtually in December of this year.

I’d also like to update the committee on reports and guidance produced by our office since our last appearance. In February, we released a joint investigation report, together with our colleagues in Quebec, Alberta and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, on Clearview AI’s use of facial recognition technology. The company developed technology that scraped over three billion images from the web, including of Canadians and children. The technology was engineered in a way that allowed law enforcement and commercial organizations to match photographs of unknown people against those images.

We found that Clearview AI’s downloading of images of people from across the Internet represented mass surveillance and was a clear violation of the privacy rights of Canadians. This mass surveillance creates unwarranted intrusion into the lives of millions of Canadians, the vast majority of whom have never been and never will be implicated in a crime. While Clearview has stopped selling its product to Canadian clients, they have disagreed, in part, with our findings, and we continue to work with our colleagues to bring the company into compliance with Canadian privacy laws.

Related to this, privacy regulators in every province and territory are working together to develop guidance for law enforcement on the use of facial recognition technology. This guidance was made available for public consultation earlier this month, and we will post the finalized document on our website when that is complete.

[1:10 p.m.]

In May, we launched our Commissioner Speaker Series, a series of events presented virtually. It brings together experts to discuss current access and privacy issues.

I recently hosted the first event, which focused on privacy in the age of COVID-19. The panel consisted of former B.C. Commissioner David Loukidelis, former Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart and the current Privacy Commissioner of New Zealand John Edwards. We discussed a number of issues, including how the pandemic has exponentially escalated digital trends and growth, further highlighting the urgent need for privacy reform.

We launched the Commissioner Speaker Series on May 4, during our Privacy Awareness Week celebrations. Privacy Awareness Week is a global effort coordinated by members of the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities to promote awareness to privacy issues and the importance of protecting personal information. During the week, we issued guidance for organizations collecting personal information online, highlighted additional relevant guidance for individuals, organizations and public bodies, and we participated in three separate speaking events, including our own panel.

I’m pleased that these virtual presentations are reaching an ever-wider range of stakeholders. The first commissioner panel had almost 200 attendees, with many additional views resulting form its online availability on our YouTube channel. I believe the link has been shared with you, committee members, in advance of this presentation.

Just last week we released a joint investigation report with the B.C. Ombudsperson and the Yukon Ombudsperson and Privacy Commissioner, looking at the challenges in fairness and privacy arising from the use of artificial intelligence, or AI, in the public sector. The report explores the regulatory challenges that come with new and intricate technology and provides some best practices and general guidance for public bodies when implementing AI. We will provide you a link to the report for your perusal. I’m grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with my B.C. and Yukon colleagues.

Finally, tomorrow morning we will be releasing our review of private sector liquor and cannabis retailers, which will focus on the privacy management practices of licensed retailers in this sector. We conduct these kinds of audits and compliance reviews from time to time to assess how effectively public bodies and private sector organizations protect the personal information of British Columbians and how they comply with the access provisions under our public and private sector legislation.

This review included 30 liquor and cannabis retailers. We chose this specific sector based on particularly sensitive personal information collected by these businesses, media stories about them and calls our office has received regarding their collection, use and disclosure of personal information, including drivers’ licences, facial recognition images and, recently, due to the pandemic, thermal temperatures. I will share with you a link to the report, once it is released tomorrow morning.

I’ll now turn to some of the recent work with the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists. As you know, the Lobbyists Transparency Act, or LTA, designates me as the registrar for the ORL, by virtue of my position as Information and Privacy Commissioner. My responsibilities as registrar under the LTA include a mandate to establish and maintain a new registry for lobbyists and to oversee and enforce compliance with the act.

Over the past few months, we have moved forward with the process of creating and hiring additional positions for the ORL, including a registry and compliance officer and an education and research analyst.

I would like to thank the committee for recommending that government approve our 2021-22 budget request to add these positions to the ORL team. They will provide much-needed support to our front-line work, which has seen a 300 percent increase in individual requests for information about the lobbying rules and the registry. They will support our education and compliance work relating to the latest amendments to the act.

We continue to work to educate lobbyists and the public on those recent changes to the act and the registry. Since our February appearance, we have published three guidance documents. One is a comprehensive guide for those new to the registry. Another provides information about recent updates to the registry that streamline registering funding information. The third is guidance for those lobbying provincial entities, such as government corporations.

The office has also participated in three virtual speaking events to specific sectors. These events are an important way for us to not only talk about the act and recent amendments but to hear from stakeholders and the questions they have. Our May issue of our newsletter, which is done in electronic form, called Influencing B.C., has been included in our list of resources sent to you prior to our appearance today.

As you peruse it, you will see that we have featured information on the gift-giving rules. On this topic, we are focused on clarifying for lobbyists that the LTA permits only certain gifts or benefits to be given and that all gifts must be declared in the registry when they are promised or given to public office holders.

[1:15 p.m.]

The public education work continues and will ramp up over the coming year as the new positions we are in the process of hiring are integrated into our team. The goal continues to be ensuring that the legislation is understood so that lobbies achieve a high rate of compliance with the act.

Our office is also slated to host the annual meeting of federal, provincial and territorial lobbying commissioners in Victoria at the end of September. This meeting is an opportunity for me and my counterparts across the country to exchange information and best practices in education, compliance and enforcement work that supports transparency in lobbying.

I’d like to conclude my time this afternoon with a brief review of the 2020-21 financials. While these ’20-21 fiscal numbers are still to be verified, we are projecting a grand surplus of $276 for our operating budget, on a total budget of $6.942 million. We also spent $27,595 on our capital budget, of the $29,000 allocated, leaving a total of $1,405. I look forward to presenting the final numbers when I’m back before you in the fall.

I wish to thank the committee for recommending that government approve our 2021-22 budget request to cover additional service levels and ongoing cost pressures. The additional funds are being put to work to support oversight of the amendments to lobbying legislation, provide funds to contract for technical expertise in complex technology investigations and for the office to begin to prepare for the transition to an updated case file management system.

Before I invite your questions, I did want to finish where I began this presentation, and that is to acknowledge the absolutely incredible work being done by everyone at the OIPC and the ORL. The work of our team has supported the continuity of operations under the unique pressures brought on by the pandemic. In a word, their service has been exemplary, and it’s my privilege to work with each and every one of them.

With that, Chair, I thank you and the committee for your attention this afternoon. My team and I would now be pleased to answer any questions that you might have.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Commissioner. Before I open it up for questions and observations, my observation is that as you’ve described your work and the highlights of your work, I can’t help but be reminded that all of us talk about what a year it’s been. It’s been a year like none other, and there are so many things we’ve had to grapple with that we never thought about before.

In your report today you’ve shone a light on some of the deeper complexities of what it means to try to function as a society during a pandemic and maintain human rights and functionality. You’ve also pointed out that much of this is uncharted territory and that you’re playing a leadership role in charting that territory. So thank you.

Questions, observations, discussion? Did I steal everyone’s thunder?

M. McEvoy: Yes. Your observation is so right, Madam Chair. I’m not sure why, but sometimes, particularly on the privacy side of things, we find ourselves as first responders in some of these issues. It’s not solely us. Clearly, there are many other considerations, but we often find ourselves at the front line and engaging in discussions.

As you know, these are society-wide discussions. There may be issues that come directly before us as a result of those things, and maybe we are in position of having to make some decisions about them. But it’s really important that we be discussing as a community, as British Columbians, some of these approaches to issues.

J. Routledge (Chair): Yes, I think so.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Commissioner, I just wanted to thank you for your good work. I know from dealing with you in the past, it isn’t always easy.

You just described a couple of things about some of the challenges that have been presented with the vaccine passport. I guess I’m just wondering…. These things kind of emerge. But what do you see on the horizon in terms of cost and dealing with that? Or is it too early to really address the impact of something like this that’s going to be, I think, relatively sudden? I’m just not quite certain how facial recognition is going to fit in with passports and things like that.

[1:20 p.m.]

M. McEvoy: That is a really good question. I do think it is…. Well, it’s too early, but on the other hand, events are moving rapidly.

For example, on the passport issue, things are moving rapidly. As you know, there’s a great desire to open international borders, and there’s a question in doing that — if it’s a requirement to have a vaccine, how that’s proven and verified. In my view, there is right way and a wrong way to do that. It’s an important tool, but it really does have to ensure that, whatever its architecture, it properly protects people’s information so that they can have confidence in that tool.

I would say that in our office’s discussions with the British Columbia government, I do believe that they are going in the right direction in the kind of architecture that they are trying to design. But of course, it’s a complicated question, because it’s something not just in British Columbia. There has to be interaction with provinces across the country and the federal government, which, ultimately, will show Canada’s face to the world when it comes to checking in to an airport overseas, in the United States or wherever that may be.

Those questions, right now, are being discussed. Our office, my colleagues across the country, are engaging in conversations with information officers from across the country at a governmental level. We really want to ensure that whatever credential is developed, it’s going to be one that will have the trust and confidence of British Columbians and Canadians. So it is very much immediate and ongoing work and to be determined as to what the outcome is going to be.

P. Alexis: Along those lines, I know we’re looking at, perhaps, July 21 as the border opens. Will this work be completed by then so that the appropriate measures can be implemented on the 21st? How are we with respect to timelines?

M. McEvoy: I think things are very much moving along at a very quick pace, from what our understanding of the matters is. We will be involved in some discussions, I believe, on Wednesday of this week, with, again, my counterparts across the country and with government officials to talk about the architecture of a possible solution that gets us to July 21 and beyond.

What we don’t want to do is rush into a solution that is going to not serve us well in the long term. But again, there is an immediate need to get this process to completion so that we are able to get back to…. I’m not sure “normal” would be the right word but at least some semblance of a move towards normalcy.

P. Alexis: Thank you very much. Just fascinating topics. You’re on, certainly, the cutting edge for all us. So I greatly appreciate the work. Thank you.

J. Routledge (Chair): Anyone else?

Well, Commissioner, it sounds like you gave us a very thorough presentation, a very thorough briefing — covered a lot of things and not a lot of vague areas that we felt we needed to dig into.

With that, I would thank you and your staff and your deputy commissioners for your time and for all of the important work that you do.

M. McEvoy: Thank you. Thank you to the committee for the work you do in this oversight, which is so critical. I wish you all well this summer.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Commissioner.

J. Routledge (Chair): The suggestion is that, since we have some time, we go back in camera to finish discussions about planning for the public consultation this fall.

Pam is moving that we go in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 1:25 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): We have completed our meetings for today. So I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 1:54 p.m.