The committee met at 6:48 p.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

Deliberations

M. Starchuk (Chair): Good evening, everyone. My name is Mike Starchuk. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I’d like to acknowledge that we’re meeting today on the legislative precinct here in Victoria, which is located on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking peoples, known as the Songhees and the Esquimalt Nations.

Tonight we’ll begin our meeting in the in-camera portion, following which we’ll be hearing supplementary funding requests from the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

A motion to go in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 6:49 p.m. to 7:13 p.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): We’ll take a short recess to set the room.

The committee recessed from 7:13 p.m. to 7:16 p.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right, everyone. We’re going to call the meeting back to order. Now we’re going to hear supplementary funding requests from the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.

We’ve set aside, Prabhu, ten minutes for your presen­tation, followed by up to 20 minutes for committee questions.

The floor is yours.

Supplementary Funding Requests

OFFICE OF THE POLICE
COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

P. Rajan: Thank you very much. Good evening, Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the committee.

I would like to first acknowledge that the work of our office extends across the homelands of the Indigenous peoples and express gratefulness that our office is found on the unceded traditional lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, also known as the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations communities.

I also affirm that colonialism and the attitudes and practices that have accompanied it have had and continue to have harmful effects on Indigenous peoples.

I’m honoured to once more represent my office and our committed and hard-working staff before this committee. I’m again excellently supported by deputy commissioner Andrea Spindler and Dave Van Swieten, deputy corporate shared services.

I thank the committee for granting me additional time to present our supplementary budget request. Should our request be approved, it will allow my office to deliver on new legislative obligations that the Legislature has now required with the passing of Bill 17 on April 25.

When we appeared before you in October of last year, we were not aware of the specific changes that would be passed by the Legislature. I believe our budget request is an investment in civilian oversight. This is a view consistent with not only the 2019 and ’22 all-party special committee reports but also with the Legislature’s amendments to the Police Act.

We will do our best to absorb the impact of some of the changes, but a similar absorption in the areas I will describe will not be possible without the committee’s support. I will set out why I believe that our request is modest, and, if granted, it will add tremendous value to strengthen confidence in policing.

We are asking for the following this fiscal year: $1.235 million in operating funding and $709,000 in capital funding. Our request seeks to fund seven permanent full-time-equivalent positions, and this is necessitated by new legislated obligations, workload pressures, Lower Mainland space and a mandatory salary increase following the government’s acceptance of the Judicial Compensation Committee’s recommendations. Since we would not be able to onboard people immediately, we are asking, on average, for half a year of funding for the increase in FTEs.

My request is primarily based on a shifting legislative and financial landscape, but it also contemplates my own vision for achieving greater accessibility, efficiencies and improvements in public trust in the system and policing. My request associated with the legislated amendments expanding the OPCC’s mandate and authority is $716,000 in operating costs and $10,000 in capital to fund five permanent positions.

[7:20 p.m.]

There are many changes to the Police Act that will directly and immediately impact our work. I believe that these changes will improve policing oversight, and my office is committed to delivering on these enhancements. But without the resources requested, we will not be able to give effect to the Legislature’s intent and direction.

We need to add organizational capacity to design and prepare our office for systemic investigations, a brand-new program. We have to be able to hit the ground running when it comes into effect.

In my career, I’ve been intimately involved in systemic investigations. I know how much work is required to do this effectively. I also know how impactful dealing with issues at a systemic level can cause broader, meaningful change. If successful, systemic investigations under the Police Act can reduce the overall incidence of misconduct, improve police culture, reduce repeat complaints and generally provide more trust in policing.

We also need capacity to provide critically important legal support to navigate the new initiatives and more broadly assist with the complexities of our work. We require capacity to support Indigenous-related efforts and build a new observer program that seeks to provide the community with more direct insight into the complaints process. This would include contract costs to retain observers. We need capacity to develop and provide education on new binding guidelines to address procedural gaps and inconsistent approaches in misconduct investi­gations.

In our next budget submission, we will be addressing how to respond to the outreach capacity needed to prepare for upcoming oversight over safety officers in detention facilities across the province. When that particular change is in effect, it would expand the scope of my office over non–police officers and to every holding cell in the prov­ince, including those under RCMP jurisdiction.

We also need increased adjudicative capacity. We expect more immediate and more future public hearings. Please note that we must not only fund our own counsel but also the costs associated with the retired judges and their counsel, public hearing counsel and other ancillary costs.

You can expect that I will return to you for further funding needs as we better appreciate the impact of the legislative changes and as new powers come into effect such as systemic investigations and oversight over detention guards.

My request to address workload and support capacity issues, largely due to the Surrey police transition, is $303,000 in operating costs and $4,000 in capital to fund two permanent positions. At our appearance before this committee in October of 2023, we were somewhat conservative in our request for resources to address Surrey. Former commissioner Pecknold, correctly in my view, wanted to continue to monitor developments given the many uncertainties related to this transition. We now know that Surrey will officially be the police of jurisdiction as of November 29.

We also have updated metrics regarding the work created by the Surrey police service as set out in detail in our business case. Please keep in mind that our numbers regarding the Surrey projections are conservative. If we instead use Victoria or Abbotsford as comparators, our projected SPS numbers would have been up to twice as high. These numbers also don’t take into account the possible growing pains of a new service or the effect greater outreach might have on quantity of complaints.

I thank the committee for your previous support in approving funding for three full-time-equivalent positions for ’24-25 and two more for each of ’25-26 and ’26-27. Given the increasing numbers and growth of our staff, we need two more FTEs to add to our supervisory capacity, which will address span of control, mental health and wellness and training needs for staff and other system actors, considering the complexity of this legislation and the new changes.

Beyond Surrey, we also need capacity to enhance our ADR program, which I highlighted on Thursday, and also to manage a likely increased workload due to additional police officers in Vancouver and the expansion of body-worn cameras.

My request associated with the Lower Mainland facility is $116,000 in supplemental operating funding and $695,000 in supplemental capital funding. I very much appreciate the committee’s support for this space by pre­viously approving $725,000 in capital. However, that esti­mate has been updated by the real property division in the Ministry of Citizens’ Services to $1.42 million for ’24. The 2022 estimate was conservative in that the space was slightly smaller and didn’t allow for intake capacity.

The ’24 estimate considers optimizing geographical accessibility and intake capacity so we can deal directly with the public. The likelihood that further growth in my office will occur on the Mainland and a less conservative number, given current market conditions that reflect our updated requirements….

[7:25 p.m.]

Therefore, some of the additional costs can be attributed to a more practical implementation of a Lower Mainland office in a way that will best serve the public. Please note that we have significantly scaled the project back from initial plans that would have included public hearing space. We will continue to seek alternate, more cost-effective solutions for public hearings.

The $100,000 requested for commissioner salary reflects the year 2 costs tied to the Legislature’s acceptance of the Judicial Compensation Committee’s report. My request will fund this cost pressure for ’24-25, and future years will be incorporated into the next budget cycle when we appear before this committee.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that we have been very careful in only asking for what we believed was necessary and ensure that new resources would add value to our role in police oversight and lead to an increase in the public’s confidence in the system.

Thank you, and we look forward to any questions you may have.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Prabhu, thank you very much for your presentation tonight.

H. Yao: Thank you so much. Again, thank you so much for making the time to come to talk to us again. I know your time, all three of you, is very valuable, and we appreciate you, a second time, coming and chit-chatting with us.

Obviously, again, I’m not an accountant, so Dave, you’ll have to put up with me asking some number questions.

I’m looking at the bottom, which says the full-time-equivalent initially recommended was 40, and now you are asking for another 3.67. Is the number correct?

D. Van Swieten: Yeah, that number is accurate. The way to think of it is we’re asking for seven full-time FTEs, but their start dates are staggered throughout the year. So the burn for this current fiscal year will be 3.67, reflecting those staggered start dates.

H. Yao: So 3.67 is less than 10 percent of 40, but I’m looking at the proposed and recommended budgets. Proposed is 653, compared to 5,491. So it seems to be slightly more than the initial 10 percent of the actual total budget you’re asking for, over what our previous number is. Do you have any explanation to help us better appreciate the differences?

D. Van Swieten: If I can paraphrase what I think you’re asking, we’ve got a seven count increase in staff on a base of 40, which is less than a 10 percent increase.

H. Yao: Your number is 3.67.

D. Van Swieten: Yeah, which is less than 10 percent. The budget request itself does include some other things — for example, the facilities costs, as well as legal and adjudicative costs. They don’t include funding for….

H. Yao: My apologies. I’m specifically looking at salary and benefits. I apologize for that. I’m specifically looking at salary and benefits here. It says your initial recommen­dation is 5,494, and then the additional recommendation is 653. That’s a slightly over 10 percent number. Well, close to 12 or 13 percent. Maybe you can help us appreciate why the difference. Obviously, I’m not an accountant, so I apologize if my question doesn’t make sense.

P. Rajan: No, that’s totally okay. I’ll just turn to the page you’re looking at.

D. Van Swieten: You’re looking at STOB 50 in the budget request table?

H. Yao: Yes.

D. Van Swieten: Okay.

Henry, now that we’re looking at the same table, is it the 440,000 that you’re asking about?

H. Yao: I’m looking at the 5,491, compared to a proposal of the 653. That’s what I’m trying to learn. My apologies.

P. Rajan: I’m not sure if we’re finding, exactly, your reference.

H. Yao: Apologies.

P. Rajan: No, no apologies needed. Hopefully, we can explain it effectively, and once we get to the right numbers, that would be helpful.

S. Chant: Mine, hopefully, is a simpler question, which is how many FTEs do you want to end up with? What would your grand total of FTEs be if you could wave your.…

P. Rajan: Grand total is seven.

S. Chant: Grand total, inclusive of what you’ve got now.

P. Rajan: Yes.

S. Chant: So 40 plus seven?

[7:30 p.m.]

P. Rajan: Sorry. My apologies. We’re asking for seven total. Five that, essentially, can be connected to the new legislation and two, effectively, for supervising positions within Surrey.

S. Chant: For workloads.

P. Rajan: Yes.

What Mr. Van Swieten just said is that because we’re not going to be able to have somebody start tomorrow, we’re going to have to roll in those seven positions. So we’re essentially asking for funding for a bit above half that amount.

We’ll get the positions in, but obviously, we’ll come back next for the next cycle and speak to you and ask for full-time funding for the next full fiscal year. I hope that answers your question.

S. Chant: I think that does.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Coralee, you have a question?

C. Oakes: No, just listening.

M. Starchuk (Chair): I guess I have a question that’s very topical right now. With regard to the additional staff that you have, and you’ve got a staggered start for all of them, does your budget submission reflect what it’s going to be in ’25-26, ’26-27 for all of those positions that are there?

P. Rajan: Yes. I believe so. It does set out exactly what we anticipate the budget would be for those years, yes.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Are there any other questions? We have a surplus of 14 minutes.

Interjection.

P. Rajan: I was about to just walk out the door. I’m happy to answer questions.

H. Yao: A question about total capital budget. Again, correct me if my numbers are wrong. You had the 2024-­2025 budget, for which your initial recommendation was $789,000. Then the new proposed one is an additional $709,000 to $1.498 million, which is almost double. I assume it’s because you’re trying to set up your Vancouver and Lower Mainland office. That’s what the money was that’s in the demand. Is that correct?

P. Rajan: Are you talking about Lower Mainland space?

H. Yao: No. I’m talking about your capital budget.

P. Rajan: Yes, that’s largely connected to the Lower Mainland space.

H. Yao: Yes, perfect.

P. Rajan: If I could, I can explain a little bit more, and I’m sure the numbers can.… If you want to get more in the weeds, Mr. Van Swieten, I’m sure, can explain it.

As I indicated in my submissions, we very much wanted to hit a pause and make sure that the space that we obtained, obviously subject to your approval, matched what our vision was for the future. I think I alluded to this on Thursday: we very much see the Lower Mainland space as an ability to connect better with the public. It’s where, frankly, most of our complaints and our issues arise.

As you build in the new changes to the legislation, particularly systemic investigations, we feel that that is our area of growth. Obviously, a good portion of that increase, the capital that we’re asking for, is just because ’22 was less than ’24. The costs have gone up, but a portion of it reflects the ability to have intake staff, meeting rooms, interview rooms, that type of thing, so that we can adequately move forward with the Legislature’s direction.

H. Yao: I do want to say I’m grateful that you’re doing this. I think you’re absolutely correct. The majority of municipal police forces are in the Lower Mainland. My shock — pardon me, even though I’m saying it right now: why wasn’t it done ten years before, 15 years before?

We’re very thankful for your vision. I just want to make sure that the number makes sense to me. I’m not here to criticize. I know I can trust Dave. He usually puts a really good number out. I just want to make sure I understand the number myself. Thank you so much.

P. Rajan: If I could just say something, out of respect for my predecessors as well, I believe that there was Mainland space before. There are various reasons that I don’t need to get into. I think they’re all sound reasons, but I think that the decision we’re trying to make here is probably appropriate for today.

It’s not like this is the first time we’ve thought about it. It has actually been there, but I think the time is right to really have an effective Lower Mainland space, I think, given where oversight is going.

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. Just trying to determine here, figure it out.

On the new legislation funding request — it was a new amendment to the Police Act, essentially, not really knowing what the impact was going to be — what methodology was used to determine five full-time employees? Is it just experience? Where’d that come from?

[7:35 p.m.]

P. Rajan: I’m going to also pass it on to Deputy Spindler in a moment to speak to this.

First of all, on the amendments, royal assent happened, essentially, on the spot. We didn’t have the month now, and that’s fine. Well, we’re anxious to get started.

We’ve tried to break it down the way I broke it down in my submissions. You have systemic investigation. That’s going to come into effect through regulation, but once it comes into effect, we need to start going.

We thought we needed two people, at least, to plan for that — somebody who had a director role, who could take responsibility for this brand-new program and set it up; and somebody at an investigative level to build up that capacity. There’s going to have to be outreach and connecting with people about that.

We talked a little bit about public hearings, the ability to call a public hearing much earlier. As you may know, at this point, public hearings can really happen at the very tail end of the process, but now, after an investigation report is complete, a final one, we’re in a position where I can call a public hearing at that point.

Now, one might anticipate that there might be more immediate public hearings called — and they’re not inexpensive, sir. I alluded to the fact that we’re also paying for the system, not just for OPCC costs — i.e., our counsel — but we’re paying for the other actors, the needed actors in that process — the adjudicator, other counsel, etc. We’re really asking, on behalf of the system, for that. So there’s that.

That includes, also, a legal position internally, which I think we’ve identified to, in some ways, save money. If you have a counsel internally, for counsel doing one public hearing could save up to $30,000 to $50,000, potentially, of external costs.

We’ve tried to build in efficiency. We’ve also looked at other developments — the Indigenous role, which, frankly, is very much due; and we need to build this observer program, which is quite unique. How does that exactly look? We need somebody to help build that out.

I’m sure I’ve missed some points. If I can turn it over to Deputy Spindler….

A. Spindler: Yeah, I think you’ve covered quite a bit of it.

Just the last piece I’ll mention that the commissioner didn’t mention was a training-related position. Of the five FTEs, one of those was related to training. What we found, connected in with this new legislation, is our ability to establish binding guidelines.

This really gives force and effect to create consistency across decision-makers. It helps to identify efficiencies to the process. Really, it improves the quality of decision-making and the ability to then develop those guidelines and go out to the police departments, decision-makers and investigators, who are responsible for doing these investigations and responsible for issuing decisions.

We identified that this was a really important way to give force and effect to these binding guidelines: not just for us to create a guideline and send it out to the departments but to work with those departments, to train them, to work with them to identify those areas that I had just mentioned.

In being able to give full force and effect to those guidelines, we could internally just issue guidelines, but we felt that it was value-added to be able to meet with and have a position dedicated to coordinating that training, with those decision-makers and with professional standards investigators, to help look at that consistency and improving that quality. In this province, we do have police investigating police, and I think we need to build those investments to improve in those areas where we can. From a methodology perspective, this is the starting point.

Systemic investigations. With those two positions, we wanted to recognize we can’t just build a team right away. We want to be able to do it right, by establishing two positions now that can really help us then build out a proper methodology, so that when we come back to you next year, we’ll be able to have a good business case to put forward to all of you around that systemic piece.

[7:40 p.m.]

P. Rajan: That was very helpful.

If I could just add one more point, it’s not just our internal thinking on this. Systemic investigations are not new in policing. Akin to what the Legislature just granted us, it’s conducted in other jurisdictions, and we’re going to be consulting with them to find out exactly how they build up a team, how they issue determinations, and how they build an investigation group.

I can assure you that we spent a lot of time making sure that whatever we asked for was what we needed. I can assure you that if we determine that we don’t need something, we will tell you and return it. We’re not going to use it for other purposes. Our intention is….

We’ve asked for a certain amount for the Lower Mainland space. If we determine we can get a space for less, well, then, you will know about it, and you will have the excess funds returned to you if you grant that request. We’re just in the midst of that process and getting different quotes. We should know more as time passes, and we would be happy to invite any of you for a visit to the Lower Mainland space when the time is right, but it all depends on you and whether you grant our request.

M. Starchuk (Chair): I have two people left on the list and five minutes in which to ask and answer.

Nick and then Ben.

N. Simons: Thank you very much for the presentation. I’m just curious. The legislation allows for systemic investigations, but it doesn’t mandate systemic investigations. How have you determined how many you’ll do, if you’ll do them?

I’ve seen other independent officers have the authority to do that, and occasionally they will, when the situation arises. You’ve sort of built it in, as if there will be always systemic, and you have a systemic investigations case. Can you just explain that to us?

P. Rajan: Yes, sir. That’s a great question. I’ll temper my comment initially noting that in two months…. So for two months, I’ve been in this role.

That being said, if you look at my career, what I’ve focused on is human rights equity issues. When I was running inquests in Ontario, we focused…. Actually, one of my requirements, one of my mandates was to move the system from a case-by-case basis where you would have recommendations in an individual death and then you’d move on to the next one and start from scratch again. We are there now, moving the system towards looking at cases in groups.

You can imagine having opioid-related overdose deaths in custody is not an individual case. It’s a systemic issue. Are you just going to deal with it each case by case, or are you going to deal with it more broadly?

I can assure you in my two months, and I’m sure Deputy Spindler would agree…. There are many systemic issues underlying policing in Ontario. I have a few in mind. I’m not going to, maybe, say it right now. There are certain issues that I think we want to tackle pretty quickly. But it’s not just us. We’ll consult.

As I mentioned on Thursday, I’m going on a bit of a tour. I’m trying to meet as many community groups as possible to understand what they’re hearing and what they’re seeing. I think it’s really important that we hear from the people that actually represent those who are marginalized or vulnerable, and to understand. I’m meeting with police chiefs and others to understand what they’re seeing in policing.

It’s not just us in our offices. Really, it’s about trying to get in touch with British Columbians and those who might have some ideas as to what systemic issues might exist. I can’t guarantee anything, sir, but I can anticipate that we will certainly turn our minds to systemic investigations the second we have that authority.

B. Stewart: In your capital request, you’ve got $1.322 million for tenant improvements. Does that include any of the leasing costs, or is that just improvements?

P. Rajan: Yes, it does, I believe. Mr. Van Swieten probably could give you a bit more detail.

D. Van Swieten: The short answer is it doesn’t. The leasing cost would be an operating cost that would show up further in the budget submission before you. This is just a combination of tenant improvements to get space prepared as well as furniture costs for any furniture that costs over a thousand bucks. It also shows up in the capital request.

B. Stewart: So going further on this particular tack, I’m assuming that this is going to be in place some time in this fiscal year. So there is operating cost. Have you got that covered in the budget?

D. Van Swieten: Yes.

B. Stewart: Okay. So right now you have 40 FTEs. We’re talking about taking that up. How many of those people are going to be in the Vancouver area office? Is there a plan to relocate some or take some…? I think you highlighted, Commissioner, that you were seeing more of the work there than here. Does that mean that there would be a reduction in space required here? That’s where I’m going with that.

[7:45 p.m.]

P. Rajan: I don’t believe we’ve necessarily contemplated taking some people who are here and then saying: “Hey, you have to move to Vancouver.” Rather, the seven positions…. In all likelihood, most of them would be probably in the Lower Mainland, and as we maybe grow, that’s probably where we’d need to grow, because we’ve reached a certain, I think, limit in the Victoria office.

Let me pass it over to Deputy Spindler. She may have some further thoughts.

A. Spindler: Sure. I can let you know that we currently have nine FTEs, so nine staff currently right now that work in the Lower Mainland. They all work remotely right now.

The goal is for us to establish a Lower Mainland office, and then through flexible work agreements from a hybrid working model, they would have opportunities to go into the office on a hybrid basis. Then in terms of future growth and opportunities, we do seek candidates from both Victoria and the Lower Mainland, particularly for our investi­gative analyst cohort, which is the majority, the bulk of our staffing.

In the past two competitions, a number of them have come from the Lower Mainland. This is investing in that Lower Mainland space. It really allows us to deepen the pool of applicants and diversity of applicants that we’re looking for.

As the commissioner mentioned, with some of these new FTEs that we’re requesting, we are hoping to be able to seek qualified candidates from the Lower Mainland, and being able to have that Lower Mainland presence will be really effective to have a base for them and to run potentially systemic investigations out of, being able to do intake services, etc.

B. Stewart: In an ideal world, if you were to have that second office, what would be the rough percentage that would be here in Victoria versus over there? I mean, given that there’s way more of the staff required in the Lower Mainland environment, I don’t know how much you can do remotely from Victoria. Obviously, you’ve been doing it, so it can be done, but what’s the percentage? I’m wondering about maybe space that isn’t needed here as you move towards staffing a Vancouver office.

P. Rajan: What I would say to that is we have to constantly evaluate. If, obviously, we have excess space, we’ll have to think about that in terms of how we move forward with the space here. But I anticipate that we’re about three to one right now, if you look at the folks here in Victoria and folks that are right now in the Lower Mainland. Obviously, that scale is going to tip if we get our funding request granted and we start adding there.

I’ll be honest with you. I do not envision saying we’re going to reduce staff here. I think the staff here are absolutely needed. This is still the head office, and this is where the primary bulk of the work is done. But it may be that certain programs make sense more in Vancouver or Surrey. We haven’t decided exactly where but certainly on the Lower Mainland.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Great.

Prabhu and Andrea and Dave, thank you very much for your time this evening, and thank you very much for your presentation.

We’ll just take a short recess to reset the room and continue on.

The committee recessed from 7:48 p.m. to 7:49 p.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right, everyone. We are going to call the committee back to order. We are calling the meeting back to order.

[7:50 p.m.]

We are now here to hear the supplementary funding request from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Michael, this should be the final swan song. This should be. We’re not going to qualify it that much.

While we are getting ready, Michael, as you will know, we’ve set aside ten minutes for your presentation and followed by 20 minutes of the committee’s questions. I somewhat apologize for rushing us along, but we do have a time frame that we have to follow for this evening.

Michael, the floor is yours.

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION
AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
AND REGISTRAR OF LOBBYISTS

M. McEvoy: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Deputy Chair, and members of the committee. It’s wonderful to see everybody here on a Monday evening.

I would first like to begin by acknowledging that we are conducting this proceeding on the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations, and also to say that I’m privileged to work with many people across many traditional territories across this wonderful province of ours.

With me this evening: Jeannette Van Den Bulk to my left, a deputy commissioner; oline Twiss, deputy commissioner, to my right. Behind us, Michelle Mitchell is here, our communications director; and of course, Dave Van Swieten, who I think probably has brought his toothbrush and a sleeping bag with him to help conduct these proceedings.

Tonight I’m going to present the details of the supplemental request to our 2024-25 budget. I will also follow up on a couple of questions that committee members had this past Friday, the answers to which I think do require a slight elaboration.

I’m going to start with our supplemental request. The total request is in the amount of $374,000 in operating funds for the fiscal 2024-25 year, and it consists of three items. I have reviewed our 2024-25 budget and have determined that we have exhausted the flexibility within it and are not able to absorb these cost pressures without reducing staff.

I’m going to walk you through each item now. The first item regards two cost increases related to the commis­sioner expenses, both outside of the control of our office — one relating to the 2022 Judicial Compensation Commission process and the other, the appointment of a new commissioner.

I’ll begin with the increases resulting from the Judicial Compensation process, which ultimately resulted in a salary increase for the commissioner. As you know, this committee approved one-time funding in the amount of $77,000 for the 2023-24 fiscal year to cover the increase.

For fiscal ’24-25, there is an additional amount of $23,000, due to an April 1, 2024, adjustment to judicial salary and benefits. This means there’s a total impact of $100,000 for our 2024-25 budget. As is detailed in the supplemental submission I provided, these increases were not known to us when we presented the 2024-25 budget in the fall.

Section 40 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act mandates the salary of an appointed commissioner is to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund equal to the salary to be paid to the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. I’m therefore requesting this funding pursuant to that provision, and it is my understanding that these expenditures arising from the judicial compensation process have already been approved by Treasury Board to ministries.

I also have a request relating to the incoming Information and Privacy Commissioner’s relocation expenses. As we briefly discussed on Friday, Michael Harvey was appointed the new commissioner for B.C. on April 11, with a start date of May 6, this coming Monday. He will be coming to us from Newfoundland and Labrador where he is currently the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I’m therefore requesting up to $75,000 for relocation expenses to address the cost of his more-than-7,000-kilometre move across the country. As mentioned on Friday, this includes anticipated costs to cover things like the physical moving of household goods, a house-hunting trip, prescribed amounts for real estate fees and legal expenses. These estimated amounts have been calculated in accordance with established government policy for employees who are required to move to take a job.

My second request to you this evening arises from amendments to the Lobbyists Transparency Act that recently passed in the House. Those changes will mean that lobbyists will now only have to report government funding every three months rather than every month. That is a good thing, because it makes the provision less onerous while still ensuring lobbying transparency.

[7:55 p.m.]

The amendments also clarify the registration requirement for lobbyists who work with other lobbyists or clients of lobbyists for the purpose of lobbying and when and how lobbyists’ filing obligations come to an end.

All of these positive changes will require us to retool the lobbyists registry software. I’m therefore requesting $90,000 to complete the alterations to the registry made necessary by amendments to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, which brought into effect the changes to the Lobbyists Transparency Act. We anticipate the changes to the registry system will take up to six months to implement and will be complete in the 2024-25 fiscal year.

Finally, I’m requesting $109,000 to support a transition to a new case-tracker system. As I mentioned in my appearance Friday, the system is now built, awaits testing, and is expected to go live in June. I should emphasize this request is within the funding envelope already allocated for this project. It is only because project delays not within my office’s control have required us to alter the timing of its implementation, hence requiring me to bring this request today.

In short, we will need to hire a business analyst in 2024-25 to support the transition to the new system and to ensure any post-implementation requirements are prioritized and implemented. The analyst will work with staff and developers to ensure the system meets our day-to-day operational and reporting requirements.

To sum up, I’m requesting a total supplemental budget of $374,000, with $175,000 allocated for commissioner cost increases, $90,000 for ORL updates and $109,000 for the business analyst position for the case-tracker replacement project.

Finally, as I noted at the beginning, I would like to quickly revisit a couple of questions, specifically a couple of my answers in last Friday’s appearance. The first relates to your question about the complaints that occur within our office. The process for how those are treated will differ depending on whether the matter is a whistleblower complaint or it is an internal harassment, bullying or discrimination complaint.

In the case of a public interest disclosure or, as it is commonly known, a whistleblowing complaint, that matter would ultimately go to our public interest disclosure point person, who is Jeannette Van Den Bulk, to my left. If the complainant is of the view that this complaint needs to be dealt with externally, outside of the office, it would go to the Ombudsperson’s office under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The act, as you’ve heard from Ombudsperson Jay Chalke, is set up to provide ways for current and former B.C. public sector employees to report serious or systemic issues of wrongdoing.

If the matter concerns an internal harassment, bullying or discrimination complaint, it would normally be reported to a director supervisor. If the supervisor is not appropriate, it would go to a director. And if the complaint concerns the commissioner, the matter can be taken up with the Chief Electoral Officer. If that is not considered adequate, it can go to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, as the mechanism of last resort.

As to whether there is a similar or parallel understanding with the Chief Electoral Officer…. I think that was one of the questions raised. I reached out to the CEO’s office, and they’ve advised us that their policy for these inter­nal complaints is that they direct staff to other indepen­dent officers of the Legislature if the complaint is about the Chief Electoral Officer. Which office they say will depend on the nature of the complaint.

Beyond that, I’m not really able to speak to how that actually happens on a case-by-case basis, if it’s happened at all. I know that our office hasn’t dealt with any of those complaints, but I’m sure any questions you might have for the Chief Electoral Officer, he’d be happy to answer.

I also wanted to revisit a question about the education work we do and that you asked about concerning languages other than English. I ought to have told you that beyond translation of our website, we have an ongoing pilot project that provides spoken-language interpretation services to any member of the public that wants to connect with our office in a language other than English. We use a contracted interpretation service to do this, which offers services in over 40 languages.

Finally, in general terms, we incorporate education and guidance into the everyday work that we do, whether it’s an investigator working on a file, a member of our case review team providing early resolution, a member of the ORL team assisting a lobbyist with registering or lobbying activity, or a member of our policy team providing a training session. More education provides a seamless experience that promotes guidance over future remedial action.

With that, Chair, I thank you and the committee for your years of service. We appreciate that, and invite any questions you may have about our presentation this evening.

[8:00 p.m.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): Great. Thank you very much for your presentation, Michael, and your explanation to the clear policy that’s in place, when we talked about the various work placings that are there. It is very clear on the policy and the procedure that’s there.

I do have two questions. One is regarding the $90,000 for the lobbyists registry and the $109,000 for the Case Tracker System. Are those sunset positions, in the sense that once the work is done, those positions are done?

M. McEvoy: The answer is yes. Sorry to be so brief.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Yes is a great answer.

R. Leonard: Thanks for the presentation. I’m sorry I missed last week. This is a night for apologizing.

My question is around the $100,000 for the salary. When I read through it, there’s so much per year. So the $100,000 is for three years? It looks to me like for ’23-24, it’s just over $60,000; ’24-25, close to $20,000; and then ’25-26, $23,000. I’m curious about that $100,000 budget impact.

M. McEvoy: Thank you for the question. I’m just going to have Mr. Van Swieten walk you through those numbers.

D. Van Swieten: Sure. It’s a good question.

The $100,000 covers the increment that impacts, if I can get my years right because we just closed a fiscal year, the ’24-25 fiscal year. What you’re seeing in the out-years is a projection within the JCC report of the potential salary impacts in the following two years, which includes a fixed amount plus a percentage.

The $100,000 keeps us whole for this year, and then next year, there’ll be the $100,000, plus about another $18,000, and then another $11,000 in the year after that. You won’t see those figures in the submission, the way the documents are done, but that’s the essential salary impact in the next three years.

R. Leonard: So $100,000 plus each year.

D. Van Swieten: Yeah.

R. Leonard: Okay. Thank you.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Any other questions?

T. Shypitka (Deputy Chair): Relocation expenses — wow. Tell me that isn’t so. I bought my first house for $55,000. Now we’re at $75,000 nowadays. That was a few years ago.

I mean, that is what it is. I get the rest of it.

My question was the same, the sunset on those positions, that full-time position for the case tracker. Yeah, the rest of it’s fairly clear to me, I guess.

M. McEvoy: I noted these…. I have to say that for most of us looking at the cost of housing and moving, it’s extraordinary, a bit of sticker shock attached to that, as I’m sure it was for Commissioner Harvey as he looked at what was necessary to do the task.

As I mentioned, that’s done in strict accordance with the guidance set out in the public sector. I know he’s very conscientious of tax dollars and will be scrupulous about the way that money is expended.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Well, I don’t see any other questions and/or comments.

Michael, to you and your team: thank you very much for being here this evening and making a presentation. If I didn’t say it last week, thank you very much for your service to the province of British Columbia. I’m sure whatever brings you the next chapter in your life…. I wish you all the luck in the world.

M. McEvoy: It has been my great privilege to serve as an officer of the Legislature and to account for what we do to this committee and past members over the last six years. I think for all of us who have an opportunity to serve all of British Columbians and serve your representatives, it is a great privilege that very few of us get to do.

I thank you for your thanks, Chair, and committee members.

M. Starchuk (Chair): Okay, we’ll just take a brief pause to reset the room.

The committee recessed from 8:04 p.m. to 8:08 p.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): All right. We will call the committee back to order.

A motion to go in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 8:08 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.

[M. Starchuk in the chair.]

M. Starchuk (Chair): A motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 8:41 p.m.