The committee met at 9:01 a.m.

[Peter Milobar in the chair.]

Peter Milobar (Chair): Good morning, everyone. We’ll get started. We’ll call this meeting to order.

My name is Peter Milobar. I’m the MLA for Kamloops Centre and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I’d like to acknowledge that we’re meeting today on the traditional territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

We have two items on today’s agenda. The first will be the consideration of the Office of the Auditor General’s report, titled Ministry of Forests: Calculating Carbon Projections.

We’ll welcome the Acting Auditor General, Sheila Dodds, to the meeting and turn it over to her. We’ll check in with the comptroller general, get the presentation from the ministry, and then we’ll open it up to questions.

Consideration of
Auditor General Reports

Ministry of Forests:
Calculating Carbon Projections

Sheila Dodds: Thank you, Chair, and good morning, Members. We acknowledge with respect, gratitude and humility that the Office of the Auditor General carries our work out across traditional territories and homelands of First Nations across the province of British Columbia. These territories include the unceded homelands of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, now known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, where our office is located.

Our report called Ministry of Forests: Calculating Carbon Projections came out on March 18. The members of the audit team that I have with me this morning are Laura Hatt, assistant Auditor General, on my left; Amy Hart, principle; Janice Dowson, manager; and in the gallery, we have Daniela Pinto, who is an auditor on this team.

Janice will be leading our main presentation, but first, I’m just going to highlight some of the reasons we chose to focus this audit on calculating forest carbon projections.

Forest management practices can support climate change mitigation. They can increase carbon captured and stored by forests, and they can reduce carbon emissions that come from forestry. The ministry uses carbon modelling to understand how some of its forest management decisions may affect the B.C. forest carbon balance.

Carbon modelling, to be reliable, requires a defined methodology. A defined methodology is critical to ensuring that carbon projections are consistent and can be reviewed or replicated. This builds confidence in the quality of carbon estimates that the modelling produces.

With that, I’m going to turn it over to our audit manager, Janice Dowson. She’ll tell you about what we looked for, what we found, our conclusion and our recommendations.

Janice Dowson: Good morning, Chair and committee members. Thank you for your interest in our audit focused on the Ministry of Forests calculations of carbon projections, which was tabled March 18, 2025.

For today’s presentation, I’ll just walk you through the information contained in the Audit at a Glance, which provides a summary of the audit topic, the main findings, our related recommendations. You’ll find it on page 4 of the report.

The objective for this audit was to determine whether the Ministry of Forests used defined methodologies to calculate consistent and transparent forest carbon projections to inform forest management decisions. We examined three areas where the ministry uses carbon modelling for information about how decisions may change the amount of carbon stored and released by B.C.’s forests.

[9:05 a.m.]

First, we looked at the ministry’s calculations of the carbon benefit from the forest investment program, which invests in forest management activities to promote forest carbon capture and storage and to reduce emissions from forest practices. We found that the calculations weren’t sufficiently documented to ensure consistency and allow for review or replication.

Second, we looked at how the ministry calculated forest carbon information for the allowable annual cut determinations for timber supply areas. We found gaps in the

and storage and to reduce emissions from forest practices. We found that the calculations weren’t sufficiently documented to ensure consistency and allow for review or replication.

Second, we looked at how the ministry calculated forest carbon information for the allowable annual cut determinations for timber supply areas. We found gaps in the ministry’s methodology for calculating the carbon projections of AAC determinations, as the methodology didn’t specify an approach for calculating the impact of harvested wood products.

Finally, we looked at the methodology for calculating carbon projections the ministry established to inform forest landscape planning. Forest landscape plans are being created in partnership with First Nations and in collaboration with local governments and forest licensees. The plans will identify where and how forest management activities can occur in the landscape area. We found that in late 2024, the ministry approved a defined methodology to ensure consistent and transparent projections for forest landscape planning.

We made two recommendations focused on using defined and approved methodologies to calculate consistent and transparent projections for forest investment projects and allowable annual cut determinations. The ministry accepted both of our recommendations.

With that, I’ll now pass it back to the acting Auditor General.

Sheila Dodds: That completes our presentation, committee. On behalf of the audit team, I do want to express our appreciation to everyone at the Ministry of Forests who helped with this audit.

Peter Milobar (Chair): And anything from Nicole?

Nicole Wright: No comment.

Peter Milobar (Chair): Okay, so we’ll turn it over to the ministry and then we’ll round up the questions.

Ian Meier: Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Ian Meier. I’m the associate deputy minister for the Ministry of Forests.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to join you virtually from the territory of the Wet’suwet’en people.

We’re here today to respond to the recommendations set out in the Auditor General’s report on calculating carbon projections.

Today, in person, you have my team that really worked closely with the auditors in this process. First, we have Shane Berg; he’s the chief forester and assistant deputy minister. Albert Nussbaum, who is the deputy chief forester. We have Julie MacDougall, who is the executive director of strategic initiatives. And I don’t see him, but we had Jim Brown, director of forest analysis and inventory branch.

The ministry recognizes the importance of the Office of the Auditor General and the work they do — this work in reviewing government programs and processes. We accepted and have done a lot of work with the recommendations of the Auditor General. There’s a couple areas that I’d like to quickly highlight to the committee before I hand it over to Julie to really dive into our presentation.

The Ministry of Forests has taken an active and proactive approach to carbon modelling. We have some of the best modellers in the nation that work closely with the federal government on developing and improving modelling for carbon across the country. With that proactive approach and really trying to be leading edge, we have adopted carbon calculations in our work, like was noted for timber supply reviews; that is not legislated for us to do.

Carbon modelling, as we all know, is an evolving field. It changes on a regular basis. That’s why we have some of the best modellers that are working and trying to adjust on the fly with the federal government.

The recommendations and the findings of the Auditor General’s team definitely help us. We’ve taken those recommendations to heart in providing better clarity for the public of British Columbia. On that note, I’m going to hand it over to Julie MacDougall, executive director of strategic initiatives, to run through the rest of the slides.

Julie MacDougall: I’ll just start, a little bit, by going over why forest carbon modelling is important. There’s sort of three main elements.

[9:10 a.m.]

We know that our forests can help fight climate change and support mitigation by increasing carbon captured and stored in the forestry and by reducing emissions.

Secondly, the commitment to carbon management. The Ministry of Forests is committed to enhancing the ability of forests and forest products to absorb and store more carbon.

fight climate change and support mitigation by increasing carbon captured and stored in the forestry and by reducing emissions. Secondly, the commitment to carbon management. The Ministry of Forests is committed to enhancing the ability of forests and forest products to absorb and store more carbon.

Lastly, it’s important that we can understand the impacts. Carbon modelling is used to understand how forest carbon may change as a result of management decisions.

In terms of the audit itself, the audit evaluated methodologies to determine whether the ministry used defined methodologies to calculate consistent and transparent forest carbon projections to inform decisions.

Three areas of our business were looked at: the forest investment program, setting of allowable annual cuts and forest landscape planning.

In terms of the forest investment program, the methodology for projecting carbon benefits of forest investments is not sufficiently documented to ensure consistency and allow for a review or replication. That was the finding.

The recommendation was for the ministry to improve our documentation and get an approved methodology in place. The ministry wholly supports that, and we will be working towards having that recommendation in place in about a year’s time. Starting in about a year’s time, all carbon modelling will be using that approved approach.

Now, one of the things I’d like to point out here is the audit did not look at whether the projections were correct or not. They looked at whether the methodology was documented well enough. We agree that we can improve our methodology.

Another thing around forest investment. Forest investment is like tree planting, reclamation, fertilization. There could be all kinds of treatments on our forest land base to have healthy forests growing. Carbon is only one of the elements we look at. We also look at future timber supply, return on investment, reclamation. Although carbon is an important element, there are many elements that go into determining how we’re going to do our investment.

The second element that was looked at was allowable annual cut. And again, there was identification that there were some gaps in our modelling documentation, so the recommendation was to ensure that we had an approved approach and methodology in place. Again, the ministry will update its methodology for carbon modelling for AAC determinations by this fall, addressing the gaps that were identified in the audit. All carbon modelling for AAC determinations will apply the approved methodology. Fully supportive of that recommendation.

The last element around forest landscape plans, we put a lot of focused effort in this area upfront because it was a new form of planning within the province. We focused our modeller’s attention on getting approved and defined methodology in place that the Auditor General’s office indicated was consistent and transparent. We’re catching up with some of the other areas to do the same thing. That one is in place and will be applied to all the forest landscape plans that are coming forward.

Lastly, the ministry would like to acknowledge the work that the OAG has put into this audit. We have been proactive by including modelling in areas of our business where it’s not legally required but can help inform and be proactive in how the carbon balance is managed within the forests of British Columbia.

The ministry has accepted both recommendations from the audit, and we are implementing actions in response. We’ll have both program areas where documentation was maybe not as adequate as necessary — both will be prepared and implemented by next spring. We’ll ensure that all future decisions that are relying or considering carbon information will follow that approved methodology.

With that, I will turn it open to questions.

Peter Milobar (Chair): Great, thank you. Questions?

Larry Neufeld: With respect to the model, I’m assuming that this is a computerized model. Is that correct?

Julie MacDougall: Yes.

Larry Neufeld: Then a follow-up question to the computerized model. Was it a commercial model, or was it something that was developed in-house?

Julie MacDougall: In terms of the modelling that’s used for carbon modelling nationally, it’s called the carbon budget model. The federal government is responsible for updating and collaborating with the various provinces, and we have many staff involved in upgrades to it. They’re on their third or fourth iteration of that model.

[9:15 a.m.]

That’s the model that is being used for both timber supply review as well as forest landscape planning. And then given the specificity of some of the activities that we do at a very stand level, we also have another model that we use that uses some of the same principles

that is being used for both timber supply review as well as forest landscape planning. And then, given the specificity of some of the activities that we do at a very stand level, we also have another model that we use that uses some of the same principles, where we have some expert staff that have been using a model that was built off and done in-house within the ministry. So there’s a little bit of both.

In the future, we’re looking at standardizing that into the carbon budget model by the federal government, because they’re doing enhancements that will now meet the needs that it didn’t meet for the forest investment activities previously.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to the model — and I do appreciate that it is used by other jurisdictions — do we have any sense of whether it’s been peer-reviewed or tested against other models for veracity?

Julie MacDougall: The carbon budget model, absolutely, has been extremely thorough. It’s recognized by the IPCC, and it’s the international body that looks at carbon modelling globally, so that’s all benchmarked and peer-reviewed against that. Our internal model would need more work on that, so we’re just going to migrate into the CBM model for the standard that we’ll be using.

Peter Milobar (Chair): Everyone always loves that we’re into full acronym modes right now, so that’s awesome. And there’s no way around it, so I’m just…. It’s always interesting.

Julie MacDougall: Apologies.

Peter Milobar (Chair): And notice how fast we get taught and learn what acronyms of each various specialty are.

Stephanie Higginson (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. Thanks for the audit and the response.

I’m going to actually start with a specific question. Usually, I go big and then drill down.

It has to do with, in the report — I think you touched on this, just now, in the presentation — you mentioned that the methodology was finalized in 2024. I wonder what this does to existing forest landscape plans that were being developed. Specifically, I just received a presentation from Western Forest Products talking about how proud they are of their forest plan on TFL 37 with the ʼNa̱mǥis. That was finalized or, I think, submitted around January, maybe.

So if you have a methodology that was finalized in late 2024, but we have plans that were put together through a lot of collaboration, what’s the plan to make sure that that work isn’t negatively impacted?

Julie MacDougall: My understanding is that they use the methodology that we now have approved. It was in development, and that, there, will be consistent with that methodology. But I’ll turn to my colleagues to see if they know anything different.

Jim Brown: Most of the elements of the methodology that was established in ’24 were sort of known and sort of preceded the documentation. So carbon modelling for those FLP pilots, if undertaken, would follow very similar. But you’re correct that the documentation preceded it. So there may be some variances because the work has preceded the documented or approved methodology. But we’ll work with those tables to ensure we understand what that might mean in terms of the results of the modelling.

Shane Berg: Maybe I could add to the member….

Carbon modelling is probably one of the most up-to-date and/or the newest standard of predictive forestry that we do. The modellers that we employ are, as Julie had mentioned, at the height of their talents in that regard. But they are sort of in a community in and of themselves. We don’t have a huge number of carbon modellers. They are a very specific skill set.

The interesting part of forest carbon modelling is that we have standards, as Julie mentioned, that deal with how to model carbon. But what our forest carbon modellers are doing is trying to take that methodology and apply it to how a forest or how a stand would react, and that methodology is emerging. This is why we have guidance that’s coming out. This is why we will be updating the guidance.

But it’s brand-new science, and it’s something we’re very proud of, but it’s something that is an emerging piece of information that we will absolutely make sure is kept relevant and current. And with the auditor’s help, we will ensure that we’ve got that methodology fully available.

[9:20 a.m.]

Stephanie Higginson (Deputy Chair): Just my only follow-up would be, I find it interesting, on your behalf, this is…. I’ve heard things today, you know: “emerging,” “evolving,” “brand-new,” “innovative.” I can imagine this is quite tricky from the Auditor General’s perspective, as well as from yours. We’re trying to sort of — I don’t know what the term is — square the circle or something around an evolving and emerging science into finding processes that are

evolving, brand new, innovative. I can imagine this is quite tricky from the Auditor General’s perspective, as well as from yours. We’re trying to sort of — I don’t know what the term is — square the circle or something around an evolving and emerging science into finding processes that are transparent and reliable. So despite how the report may be viewed, I also recognize in reading the report that what we’re trying to do is find a way to make this emerging and evolving science that is very cutting edge, very front of the process here, fit in with some form of reliability and the tricky nature of that.

Mable Elmore: Just following up. Thank you for the presentation.

In terms of the modelling, with respect to the federal guidance and the carbon budget model, just interested…. You referenced it a little bit with respect to the B.C.-specific stand modelling, integrating that.

Can you just give me a little bit of a picture, a landscape, with respect to the contours of that? Is the national carbon budget model also looking at standard? What’s the differentiation between the national and the need to have a specific stand model in B.C.?

Jim Brown: The federal model, the carbon budget model three, is really designed to work at the landscape level, looking at carbon stocks and how they evolve or change, both naturally but also under anthropogenic changes or factors such as wildfire at a landscape sort of level and reporting.

But when we’re looking at forest investments and things like nutrient or fertilization, there are some necessary details that aren’t captured the way that we would like to have captured, a nuance in terms of the modelling. So our modellers — very, sort of, educated — their careers are focused on this. And they’re working, as Shane said, in the community of other modellers who have looked at this. They’ve developed a special software that we apply within the Ministry of Forests to sort of address those and capture some of those elements, particularly around forest fertilization, that aren’t well captured under the CBM3.

We do that, as Shane said, in collaboration with the community of carbon modellers in B.C., including those in the federal government or at UBC. It’s not work in a silo. We are working with that broader community of experts, including peer review of the work.

Albert Nussbaum: I’d like to add something. CBM — there is a recognition that CBM is now working on version 4. Version 4 will have more resolution and will likely address this need. This is like I said. They’re working, this is evolving. There’s a recognition that the federal model needs a little bit of a brushup if it’s going to be working at this level of resolution, the stand level. So that’s coming.

There’s collaboration between all the parties that play in the carbon arena on that, so the next project will be to make that model more capable of the stand level work so that really one model will work for everybody.

Mable Elmore: Thanks. If I understand it, it’s in terms of the relationship between the carbon budget model, CBM and the B.C. stand model. It’s integrating some additional components with respect to fertilization and other…? Okay, yeah, that just helps. I was thinking kind of in my mind it was a geographic distinction but now it’s more of an integrated….. That’s really interesting.

Kiel Giddens: I really appreciate the Auditor General’s office, their work on this. I think that the chief forester and Ministry of Forests would agree that data in their world is huge, and it’s a continuous improvement project. It’s something that we’re always trying to figure out. There are lots of opinions and different voices at the table for that and that can go from the determination of the AEC to forest carbon projections as well.

[9:25 a.m.]

I guess my first question will be for the Auditor General’s Office. Just for some context of why I’m asking, I note just that in the third, in Forest Landscape Plans, and I just noted that there was no recommendation made in this area, but just wondering if there

My first question will be for the Auditor General’s office. But just for some context of why I’m asking, I note that in forest landscape plans…. I just noted that there was no recommendation made in this area. Just wondering if there was an area that was considered.

I recognize that the report said that forest carbon projections are a mandatory output for forest landscape plans. First Nations, some industry, some environmental groups, want to see offsets as an output of some of forest carbon projections. Certainly, a lot of nations are interested in that. Offsets is something that this work, on making sure that there is good data and methodology going in, is actually critical for the debates that will come on offsets eventually.

I recall a time when the province had embarked on offsets. At one point, there was the Pacific Carbon Trust. It became a real challenging political debate in the province on the durability of decisions around offsets. Forest offsets, in particular, caused a lot of real political divides. The methodology used was really something that was a point of concern.

I ask that in the context of: if First Nations are coming to the table for forest landscape planning, thinking about offsets, if industry is or if different community groups are thinking that, this work is really important, but they need to be coming with an understanding of the methodology that the Ministry of Forests is using in this.

I’m wondering if the audit did consider — I know there are no recommendations — any reporting mechanism to help the nations and local governments and industry and environmental groups so that they could really understand the data that the province was using? Was there any reporting recommendation that was considered, or is that something that you would value or think is important in this?

Sheila Dodds: Thank you for the question.

What we did is we looked at…. As the ministry has identified or mentioned — they’ve been proactive — it’s an emerging science, and we’re hearing the methodologies evolve as well. Our focus was to look at: where there is that carbon modelling happening, were the methodologies defined so that you know that the change in carbon in a period of time, it’s been calculated the same way. You know it’s not because of a change in methodology.

That really was the focus of the audit and the recommendations around…. You need to be clear around what that methodology is so it’s repeatable, so you have that consistency and transparency.

We did not look at the reporting side of it at all. We were just looking at having that consistency in terms of the methodology and to be able to communicate that.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much. Maybe just a follow-up to the Ministry of Forests, then, in that regard.

I come from a riding with forest-dependent communities as well, obviously, in Prince George–McKenzie. As we get into discussions that could eventually lead out of forest landscape planning process, and if offsets get into the mix there, there will be some of those debates that are brought up again in the province over whether an area should or should not be protected in an offset or that type of thing.

It gets into really tricky discussions for regions and communities in that case, and often those can be contentious. So that data, and making sure it’s digestible and understandable, is important.

I’m wondering how all of this data will be translated to those participating in the forest landscape planning process so that they can actually understand it. Will there be something that they can recognize it and actually, hopefully, use the same data, so that we’re all sort of singing from the same song sheet, so to speak?

I think people will be coming with their own data, as well, to that process. It would be important for them to understand why the province is using it, and hopefully adopt it, and we’re all speaking from the same language in that case.

Julie MacDougall: I can take a first stab at this one.

In terms of the data that will be provided in the forest landscape planning, yeah, we have a consistent approach available. It will have to be described and articulated in a way that different potential proponents for offsets can understand.

[9:30 a.m.]

The actual methodology for offsets or the feasibility for offsets lies on the proponent. They follow the forest carbon offset protocol, version 2, that was developed by our colleagues in CAS. That’s a very detailed methodology on how you can determine the feasibility of a project

understand the actual methodology for offsets, or the feasibility for offsets, lies on the proponent. And they follow the forest carbon offset protocol version 2 that was developed by our colleagues in CAS. And that’s a very detailed methodology on how you can determine the feasibility of a project for offsets.

So there’s a whole bunch of criteria around that. But the first step to that is understanding what the carbon dynamic is on the landscape, and at the landscape planning level, that should be quite evident in terms of when the data is presented. And of more detail on that, perhaps Jim can reflect on.

Jim Brown: Sure. So the Ministry of Forests, as well as the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, is constantly sort of developing and maintaining our forest inventory and other related inventories about the condition of the forest and also the change. And the standards for carbon modelling for FLP is embedded within a broader set of data standards and modelling standards that we have put forward, and the two ministries are working to develop datasets that will be transferred to the FLP tables.

The focus here is to get the best information that we have in B.C. together in a consistent way that is available to all of the FLP tables and to everyone who is working on these FLPs, and others, to have it in a public format that it’s available, to support things like forest landscape modelling, forest carbon modelling, habitat modelling.

So we’re working to develop consistent standards with the best data to bring forward to support FLP and also modelling for forest carbon offsets. It’ll be very useful, obviously, for those as well.

Shane Berg: Maybe as a comparison for MLA Giddens. The process that we are using is not unlike what we do with timber supply review and have for decades. There is more interest in communities to be actually doing the timber supply review modelling on their own in concert with the modelling that the Ministry of Forest does in advance of the chief forester making an allowable annual cut determination.

So we provide the data sets. We provide the methodology. I’m heading up to Kispiox in Hazelton next week to do an annual allowable cut determination. The First Nations have been using their own contractors, but they’re using a consistent methodology. They’re using the same science that we use, and I think we’re moving in the direction of ensuring that this same kind of process, transparent process and consistent process, is going to be available to each of the forest landscape planning tables.

The committee will know that we’ve got four pilots. We’ve got about nine other FLPs that are sort of in process. That leaves approximately 50-odd more to do. We hope that we will get each of those, following the same methodology, around carbon projections as we have historically with timber supply review.

Peter Milobar (Chair): Just before we get to Larry, I got a couple questions of my own. So when I first started here I was the Environment critic. George Heyman was the Environment Minister. Much excitement about CleanBC coming in. A lot of discussion about slash and fugitive emissions and tracking.

This audit seems to really have focused in on capture and trying to get credit for what’s being stored or to reduce our profile. I don’t see anywhere where it was taking into account any impacts of slash burning emissions, emissions from forest fires, so we get a net view of what’s going on with our forest.

I guess my worry is: are we only trying to quantify the capture side to better enable any government to have a better picture of emissions but not actually capture the same emissions from the same product that we’re also trying to measure for capture?

So did I miss something in here? Or has that not been done at all? Or where are we at with that whole side of it? Because it’s been it seems like almost no movement on coming up with a system around the emissions associated not just with forestry but also around forest fires.

[9:35 a.m.]

Albert Nussbaum: I think the work at that at that scale…. So we’re talking like provincially or across the country. I think the federal government takes a role

not just with forestry but also around forest fires.

Albert Nussbaum: I think the work at that scale…. So we’re talking provincially or across the country…. I think the federal government kind of takes the role with our input and assistance. But that information is available. It’s done in concert with the federal government.

Peter Milobar (Chair): For slash as well?

Albert Nussbaum: Slash?

Julie MacDougall: We’ve done a few studies on the slash pile burning and the amount of emissions that are released from it. We have some active work that is also being done. Not within…. It would be using the same modelling methodology that we’d be using for forest landscape planning or the stand level, or we’d be using the CBM modelling to determine it.

But we have some work that is specifically being done on slash pile burning to look at different mechanisms to reduce emissions by increasing utilization and/or processing the slash piles in a different way rather than burning, because we do know that the amount of emissions from slash piles can be fairly significant as compared to the total man-made emissions within the province. So it’s an area that we’re actively doing projects to determine other pathways for utilization that will reduce emissions.

Even though the scope of this audit didn’t look at that, having a defined, transparent, standard methodology, that principle that the Auditor General was looking at, is very important that we apply to all aspects of the business when we’re looking at changing our practices to improve the carbon balance. I think that this sets us up well for that, having those standards in place.

Peter Milobar (Chair): The reason I ask that is because I understand the fundamentals of it. It’s kind of hard to drive…. A chip truck is not a logging truck, so trying to get a chip truck in to grind and utilize all slash piles isn’t economically feasible or logical in any way, shape or form.

But there’s a lot that aren’t, and especially post-fire. I look at…. I just drove out by Skwlāx last weekend, and the amount of slash piles that are literally on a flat, easily accessible, right to the side of the main highway, that are sitting there. One would hope they’re going to get ground up and used as feedstock for some other form of industry, and not just a torch set to them.

That’s always my worry — that it’s great to account for the planting and the capturing of carbon, but we also have to recognize and make sure that it’s properly accounted on the other side of it as well. I didn’t want that to get lost in this conversation, that’s all.

Jim Brown: I will add — sort of just clarity — that slash pile burning and wildfire, other emissions, are part of the modelling that we do. We look at what the slash pile burning is. That full account, the whole life cycle of carbon in forest operations…. Much of it is captured, and certainly slash pile burning is a component in wildfire.

What we’re also doing is we’re looking at, you know, how the work to utilize more of the fibre in products and capture that is something that is evolving, and capturing or utilizing that fibre will reduce slash pile. So that’s certainly, as Julie said, a focus of the ministry going forward.

Peter Milobar (Chair): And in terms of the looking at the management, the stands, there’s always a concern around the monoculture and all of that. How much does wildlife habitat overlay with what’s going on here in terms of the health of the stand, the replanting process, if it’s going to actually account for any wildlife values in the area, in other words certain species, to make sure we help the caribou, not diminish it more, or help deer in a certain area?

Not that deer aren’t a bit of a pest most places in the province, but you know where I’m getting at — moose or whatever other types of habitat. How much does the wildlife habitat factor into all of this planning?

Shane Berg: I would say that the scope of the audit was very particular, with those three items that that we’ve selected and spoken to.

[9:40 a.m.]

But your question around how the landscape contributes to the various attributes that we’re trying to manage in the forest is absolutely why forest landscape plans have been adopted so that we can look at the entire landscape, not just chunks or chart areas or operating areas. And we could look at the benefit of things like habitat corridors, conservancies, riparian areas in a more landscape-level view and not compartmentalize it and not break it up so that they’re not getting the full

not just chunks or chart areas or operating areas. And we could look at the benefit of things like habitat, corridors, conservancies, riparian areas in a more landscape-level view and not compartmentalize it and not break it up so that they’re not getting the full account.

That is something that the Ministry of Forests is certainly working on. This audit, again, only focused on those three specific areas, but we are definitely looking at the benefits of that overall landscape approach to things like wildlife habitat through the FLP program.

Peter Milobar (Chair): Just one last question. You’ll have to forgive me. I’m detoxing from the last three days of budget estimates. I wrapped up last night.

Software and all this modelling is not cheap. It sounds like most of it has just, kind of over the last several years, really ramped up. Was that funded through CleanBC? Or was it being seen as a special project under the CleanBC envelope? Or was it in a stand-alone Ministry of Forests project all along?

J. MacDougall: Primarily, for most of our work, we use CBM, which is the model that’s developed by the federal government. They’ve put all the resources into developing the modelling tool, and it’s available to us — also, all the upgrades to that modelling. They’re funding that.

Now, the Ministry of Forests investment in that is staff time, making sure they have our right growth curves and right data and information and science or ideas that we have around improving the model. So we have staff time involved in that.

In terms of the modelling tool that we were using for the stand-specific level, that was just done in-house. We had no additional support. It was a couple of expert modellers that work for us that had some really amazing ideas. They just went at it, as modellers do.

Larry Neufeld: Coming at this from the perspective of someone that has used a variety of different models for many years in my professional career, with very strong respect for the individuals involved, I do have some concerns with some of the things that I’ve heard and read.

One of them is…. Certainly, my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie did a very good job of illustrating how important the output from this data is. Again, with complete respect for those involved, not having a standardized set of assumptions…. Again, having used a variety of models, changing one number within the model can create a wildly different end result.

Now that we’ve recognized that there’s a problem, we’ve gone ahead and corrected it. Are there any plans to go back and revalidate some of this very important information that was produced prior?

J. MacDougall: That’s a really good question. In terms of the modelling for the stand-level impact, it’s probably something that we can take a look at.

There was no evaluation of the outcomes that were produced. Also, there was methodology that was in place for the development of that. It did not meet the transparency standard that the OAG was looking at, but we had documentation around it. What we needed to do was finalize and approve it. So I don’t think we took a look…. It wasn’t evaluated whether the numbers were right or the numbers were wrong.

From the experts that were looking at it, they’re pretty confident in the numbers, so we’d have to evaluate whether that would have some validity to say: “Do we need to retake a look at the outcomes, given what we were utilizing them for?” Again, we were using them for taking a look at: “Is it better to plant in this area or in this area? If we have limited dollars, where are we going to get the higher value for that dollar from all aspects that we look at?”

We would have to really evaluate whether that would be an important element and use of our staff time or move forward knowing that what we were investing in were the right activities that we were going to be investing in regardless.

S. Berg: I think the committee member raises an interesting end product of this audit. I know that we conveyed that to our colleagues with the Office of the Attorney General throughout the audit.

[9:45 a.m.]

The audit focused on whether or not our methodologies were available and were easily found and, if necessary, repeatable. The findings spoke to gaps. They spoke to documentation being insufficient in two cases. But in no way was the methodology itself questioned in terms of: “Are you using the right number? Are you factoring in the appropriate mathematical

they spoke to documentation being insufficient in two cases. But in no way was the methodology itself questioned in terms of: “Are you using the right number? Are you factoring in the appropriate mathematical predictive element?”

Unfortunately, because of the nuance of the findings, there were very broad assumptions made on what the audit was saying. I think the committee members are making an observation that could be derived from that kind of broad audit result. There were media reports that heralded on the front page, “Chief forester doesn’t use acceptable information to manage B.C.’s forests,” — a very broad interpretation of the audit. In no way did the Office of the Attorney General make that statement. But it was the interpretation of that that led to an assumption that if the methodology had a gap, there must be a problem: “We must not be using the right number. We’re missing a number. We’re not using the right mathematical model.”

With your expertise in modelling, there absolutely is a necessity to ensure that the model is accurate and that you’re using the right numbers and that that prediction is something that can be validated and can be defended. This audit did not do that. It talked about whether the methodology existed and whether it was repeatable and definable. To your point, we’ve not been questioned as to our predictions and the validity of said predictions. So we’re satisfied that by improving the methodology’s availability and the transparency of that, we’ll meet the recommendations of the auditor. I think what you’re speaking to, committee members, is probably something that might be looked at in the future.

Larry Neufeld: Just to follow up to that, I’d like to restate that in no way am I questioning the skill or the effort that was put in by folks. But yes, based on what I’ve seen and based on my background, that’s where the concern came from. So thank you for the answer.

Albert Nussbaum: I think the point I take from that is that your point highlights the need for a defined methodology so people can understand what levers were pulled in the modelling. So I think it just closes a loop on the need to make sure, because it’s still evolving. Five years from now, it’s not going to be the same methodology; there’s going to be an adjustment.

But I think the key here is that people can actually see that the key assumptions that go into modelling and actually have quite a sway in it are well documented and acknowledged. So if, in the future, we discover some nuances about carbon we don’t understand today, we can actually think about what the implications are to the historic estimates that we’ve made and so forth, because we do have good documentation. So it all feeds into the notion that it, kind of, plays into the Auditor General’s findings here.

Stephanie Higginson (Deputy Chair): It’s not so much a question as an observation after sitting through this today. I understand…. I am a data…. You know, I’m a hound for it. But I also come from the education field where sometimes the focus is on data and not evidence, and they’re two different things. Because in education we’re talking about kids, and sometimes, they show they’re learning in different ways that doesn’t show up on a standardized assessment.

This has been such a fascinating process for me in terms of how advanced scientifically our forestry practice is. I shouldn’t be surprised because one of my friends was B.C.’s Forester of the Year or something, and he’s the smartest guy I know — one of the smartest people I know. I know how much he cares and how thoughtful he is. But I also get concerned when we have this drive for standardization that may limit the evolution of the science and the desire to keep evolving and growing in what is a new and emerging field.

[9:50 a.m.]

So I caution myself consistently, and my colleagues, about the desire for standardization and the ability for everybody to always be able to understand something that might be evolving and is evolving with very smart people behind it. But I also, from government, really want to encourage the notion of what this audit was going after, which is the transparency aspect of things.

the ability for everybody to always be able to understand something that might be evolving and is evolving with very smart people behind it. But also from government, really want to encourage the notion of what this audit was going after, which is the transparency aspect of things.

I think that’s where…. I’m coming out of this with a real understanding for the need for the transparency of it without inhibiting the evolution of what is an incredibly…. You know, this is a really new and emerging field and very important. And I hope that our desire for standardization doesn’t limit that, but that we can find that balance for transparency.

Shane Berg: You remind me of a very poignant statement made by a UBC forestry professor, Bunnell, who stated to his young foresters in training: “Forestry isn’t rocket science; it’s more complicated than that.”

Peter Milobar (Chair): Okay, with that, I will say both for yourselves and…. Not to freak out the legal aid people coming next, but on our side of the ledger here you have Kiel who’s been dealing knee-deep in Bill 15 scrutiny in committee stage for days on end, Larry on Bill 14, and myself coming off of estimates, so we’re a little inquisitive still. Just wired that way right now. So good on you for weathering the storm. We thank you for your presentation.

We’ll take a short break to reset and switch out the staff room before we come back to the next report.

The committee recessed from 9:51 a.m. to 9:58 a.m.

The committee recessed from 9:51 a.m. to 9:58 a.m.

[Peter Milobar in the chair.]

Peter Milobar (Chair): Okay, folks. It looks like we’re getting started again. We’re just waiting on one more tent card, but we’ll get started without that.

We’ll move on to our second agenda item, consideration of the Office of the Auditor General’s report titled Ensuring the Quality of Legal Aid Representation Services.

I’ll turn it over to the Auditor General, and we’ll do the same rotation of presentations before questions as before.

Ensuring the Quality of
Legal Aid Representation Services

Sheila Dodds: Thank you very much, Chair.

This morning’s second report was tabled on April 28, and it’s about ensuring the quality of legal aid representation services. The audit team who’s with us today includes Laura Hatt, to my left, the assistant Auditor General; Laura Pierce, a performance audit principal; Bradley Robinson, senior performance auditor; and performance auditor Amy Carolan.

Bradley is going to be the one who’s going to give the team’s presentation, but I’m just going to go through some high-level points on the reasons for this audit.

Legal aid promotes fair and equitable access to justice for people living on low incomes. Timely legal aid can reduce time in custody, resolve cases faster or give protection sooner, such as through restraining orders. Legal Aid B.C. is a Crown corporation that administers the province’s legal aid system. Legal Aid offers legal information, advice and representation in criminal, family, child protection, and immigration and refugee law.

[10:00 a.m.]

Our audit focused on legal representation services, which are delivered by lawyers working under contract with Legal Aid B.C. Demand for these services has gone up nearly 28 percent between the fiscal years of 2021-22 and 2023-24.

We conducted our audit to see if Legal Aid B.C. had demonstrated effective oversight of legal representation services. We wanted to see if they had processes and information to ensure these services were

Demand for these services has gone up nearly 28 percent between the fiscal years of 2021-22 and 2023-24.

We conducted our audit to see if Legal Aid B.C. had demonstrated effective oversight of legal representation services. We wanted to see if they had processes and information to ensure these services were timely and of high quality.

That gives you a sense of how we approached the audit, and Bradley will now take you through the key findings and the evidence that led to our conclusion and recommendations.

Brad Robinson: Good morning, Chair and committee members. Thank you for your interest in our audit of Legal Aid B.C.

For today’s presentation, I will be walking you through the Audit at a Glance, which provides a summary of our audit, our key findings and related recommendations. You can find this information on pages 4 and 5 of the report.

The objective of this audit was to determine whether Legal Aid B.C. had processes and information to help ensure eligible individuals received timely and high-quality legal representation services. The time period for the audit was April 1, 2023, to August 31, 2024. To reach our conclusion, we looked at whether Legal Aid B.C. determined the financial and lawyer resources it needed to meet demand, monitored intake services, monitored the quality of its legal representation services and addressed complaints about legal representation services in accordance with its policies.

Overall, we concluded that Legal Aid B.C. did not have processes and information to help ensure that eligible individuals received timely and high-quality legal representation services. We found that Legal Aid B.C. had determined the short-term funding needed to meet demand within the current fiscal year. However, its long-term forecast assumed demand would stay the same despite consistent annual increases over the past three years.

We also found that Legal Aid B.C. didn’t determine the number of lawyers it needed to meet short-term or long-term demand. While it collected data on its roster of lawyers and client demand, it didn’t use this data to forecast demand or identify gaps in lawyer availability.

When we looked at the intake and eligibility review policies, we found that Legal Aid B.C. didn’t have processes to ensure staff appropriately applied these policies in a timely manner. We did, however, find that the length of time to issue a contract with a lawyer has improved almost 20 percent since 2022-23.

In terms of how Legal Aid B.C. monitors the quality of legal representation services, we found that they did not have performance measures or the processes necessary to monitor the services that contracted lawyers provided.

Finally, we found that Legal Aid B.C. didn’t address complaints about legal representation services according to its policy and didn’t set timelines to address complaints. Legal Aid B.C. only considered complaints if complainants responded to an acknowledgement letter sent from them, which asked for information that the complainant may have already provided in the initial complaint. It took an average of 40 days for Legal Aid B.C. to send an acknowledgement letter after it received a complaint.

We made seven recommendations, and we’re pleased to note that Legal Aid B.C. accepted all seven recommendations. I’ll now pass it back to the acting Auditor General.

Sheila Dodds: Just before we conclude here, the audit team and I really appreciated the positive interactions and cooperation that we had with the staff at Legal Aid B.C. as part of this audit.

That’s our presentation, Chair, and we look forward to answering questions on the audit.

Peter Milobar (Chair): Great. As usual, anything…? Okay.

Over to Legal Aid.

Wendy Jackson: Good morning, distinguished members of the committee. My name is Wendy Jackson. I use she/her pronouns, and I am the newly minted CEO of Legal Aid B.C., or LABC, as we are frequently identified. With me is my colleague Steve Veinot, who is our chief financial officer and the vice-president of corporate services.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning and to share with you LABC’s response to the Auditor General’s performance audit on legal aid services.

If we’re taking you through the slide deck, starting on slide 3…. Legal Aid B.C. welcomed the opportunity for the Auditor General to review our practices and processes. I want to thank her staff in response for their diligence and professionalism in their engagement with our team.

We recognize that there are several areas for improvement and have already begun the work needed to address the recommendations. Working to implement the recommendations provides us with the opportunity to tackle some long-standing issues.

Moving to slide 4…. While the report thoroughly canvasses the various issues that need to be addressed, we see three main areas of focus: ascertaining the medium- and long-term needs for both funding and the number of service providers; enhanced oversight of intake services; and the identification of the criteria for and monitoring of quality legal representation.

[10:05 a.m.]

We’ve generated an action plan in response and are currently developing a more detailed work plan to undertake responses to these recommendations. We will utilize our governance structure to address the recommendations, including engaging our board of directors, our executive

and monitoring of quality legal representation.

We’ve generated an action plan in response and are currently developing a more detailed workplan to undertake responses to these recommendations. We will utilize our governance structure to address the recommendations, including engaging our board of directors, our executive and management team. We have a project management office that’s facilitating the work by developing a detailed workplan. These projects will be overseen by executives and reported back to our board of directors.

Implementing these recommendations will require engagement with various parties within the justice sector, including the Ministry of Attorney General, the Association of Legal Aid Lawyers as well as the bar more generally.

Moving to slide 6. The Auditor General’s first recommendation was to prepare a long-term funding forecast for the ministry that incorporates past demand and other factors that may increase demand for services. Trying to forecast demand is a bit of an art and a science. We can look to historical trends for guidance, but we also need to interpret other factors that influence demand, such as changes in the law, changes in government and other policies and the national and international economic circumstances.

Based on the analysis of these factors, we prepare a short- and longer-term forecast for the ministry. After consulting with impacted parties, we’ve developed an additional long-term forecast based on the five-year, historical compound annual growth rate, by area of law. Our approach now provides a forecast range between the current rolling 12-month average, and it projects based on five-year growth trends.

This range is intended to help the ministry understand the potential funding gap in the two scenarios, being if contract values remain flat or at current levels or if the five-year growth continues. Our updated forecast incorporates both scenarios and is included in the monthly forecast memorandum to the ministry, in place since last month.

Moving to slide 7. The Auditor General’s second recommendation was to determine the number of lawyers needed to meet demand, based on the long-term forecast that considers the number of lawyers needed. We are tracking the demand forecast based on historical analysis to better anticipate regional and seasonal demand patterns by area of law, to guide recruitment and improve the delivery in high-demand or underserved areas.

To better ascertain how many lawyers we have, at any time, who are available to provide services, we are conducting more regular reviews to confirm active roster membership. We are directly engaging with roster lawyers to determine how many contracts they are willing and/or able to take, their areas of expertise and unique skills — i.e., different languages they may speak — to better inform our future planning and allocation. This ongoing review will provide a clearer understanding of our current roster capacity and identify any geographic or practice area gaps.

How to address any gaps identified as part of the recruitment work we continue to undertake? Some of our current initiatives include an articling program that we are undertaking with the Association of Legal Aid Lawyers, a mentorship program funded by the Law Foundation that aims to match experienced lawyers with junior lawyers, increased family law mediation training and a legal aid conference aimed at helping lawyers understand how to manage a legal aid practice.

We also intend to leverage the new Legal Professions Act, once it’s fully brought into force, to explore how the expansion of any scope of practice for various legal professionals might assist us in delivering our services.

Slide 8, recommendation 3: to implement a system for reviewing intake and eligibility review processes to ensure staff compliance with policies and procedures. We have expanded internal training opportunities for both intake and our local agent assistants. We have a distributed system of intake throughout the province. So it’s important to bring these people together.

We have created a process and policy review undertaking, to better determine what the review cycle and frequency is, the deficiency of identification and follow-up, and we are working towards implementing IT improvements to track compliance and provide real-time visibility into our performance.

Recommendation 4 on slide 9: to address the cause of delays, and to ensure staff complete intake and eligibility processes on time. I note Bradley’s note that we have made significant improvements in our time to place cases.

Since the audit period time, we’ve been able to hire additional intake staff. We received specific funding to do that. This has helped address some of the backlog that we had been seeing. We have created an intake dashboard that’s monitored manually. But again, we’re looking at IT systems to see if that can be implemented somehow.

[10:10 a.m.]

The threshold has been reduced to 30 days, and we’re working towards a 21-day maximum threshold. We are conducting routine performance reviews and offering constructive feedback and coaching to staff to improve their performance.

Slide 10, recommendation 5: to define

to 30 days, and we’re working towards a 21-day maximum threshold.

We are conducting routine performance reviews and offering constructive feedback and coaching to staff to improve their performance.

Slide 10, recommendation 5: to define and monitor quality expectations for legal representation services.

Previously, Legal Aid B.C. has been relying on the Law Society as the professional regulator of lawyers to identify what constitutes quality professional standards. Our focus has been more in the area of recruitment and increasing the value proposition for the work that lawyers can do for legal aid.

For a variety of reasons, our service delivery model relies heavily on private contractors to provide services to our clients, and we’ve worked hard to strike the right balance between assuring that clients are receiving quality service, without creating too many barriers for the lawyers we need to engage to do our work.

We are now exploring how best to create a framework to look at quality assurance in a more holistic way, including identifying our expectations for lawyers doing our work, our commitment to truth and reconciliation, the principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, as well as accessibility.

Slide 11: develop and monitor timelines for addressing complaints about legal representation services.

We have updated and clarified the language in our complaint response templates. For example, the form previously used by clients to request a change of counsel also included an option to make a complaint about their lawyers. This resulted in many clients believing it was necessary to make a complaint in order to receive a change of counsel, creating some unsubstantiated complaints that clients weren’t actually interested in pursuing.

This has been addressed by separating lawyer complaint requests from change of counsel requests. Complaints are now directed to the standard complaint form or to email the audit and investigation department if they also wish to raise a concern about their lawyer. In addition, the audit and investigation department has changed their standard letter and processes to no longer require the complainant to respond to the acknowledgement letter.

We also now offer multiple avenues, including online forms, email and telephone, to accommodate different preferences. The complaint channels are now easier to find and use, with clearer instructions, and we will continue to analyze data to identify trends for areas of improvement.

Finally, recommendation 7 on slide 12: to develop and monitor timelines for addressing complaints about legal representation services.

In the past, complaints took longer than the ten days identified to clients because, as identified earlier, they could be received by different parts of the organization, which then resulted in delays. This has been addressed by consolidating the processes to direct all complaints to our audit and investigation department, as opposed to our intake department. We have also extended the time frame for acknowledging complaints to 14 days, which we think is a more realistic time frame.

We are working on systems to track and report on timelines so that performance in this area can be better monitored, and we will also continue working towards resolving issues within our own identified timelines.

Slide 13. In conclusion, we are committed to addressing all of the recommendations identified with process and policy-related recommendations.

We see this audit as having been an opportunity to ensure that we are in fact providing timely and high-quality legal representation services, to establish a series of service expectations to assist our clients in addressing their legal matters, to build out a supply of excellent private bar lawyers and legal professionals to provide service to our clients, and to ensure that legal aid lawyers have the support that they need to serve our clients effectively.

I appreciate the time taken to listen to our response. I’m obviously available for any questions the committee may have.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to the financial component, the short-term funding, long-term issues: has this been an issue in the past with forecasting the budget, where we’ve had to go back to the to the kitty, as it were?

Steven Veinot: With respect to forecasting a longer term, normally the relationship with the ministry and Legal Aid B.C. has been very much of a short-term focus. The model has changed over the last few years, and the demand has also been very, very stable.

What’s really, I think, highlighted this increase in demand is: coming out of the pandemic definitely escalated demand, as well as we made changes to some of our financial eligibility requirements.

[10:15 a.m.]

What’s happened now is we are trying to illustrate to the ministry what the longer-term impact is of now committing to contracts that are essentially two-to-three years in length, so that they can understand what the actual financial impact is, as opposed to previously, where it was fairly stable. It didn’t change as much.

now committing to contracts that are essentially two-to three-years old in length so that they can understand what the actual financial impact is as opposed to, previously, where it was fairly stable. It didn’t change as much.

Steven Veinot: Okay, thank you. I think my question was more around have we had to go back for additional funding previously to this to this audit period?

Wendy Jackson: What I can say is that Legal Aid B.C. receives its funding primarily with base funding, but there’s also an aspect of contingency access for services that may be required, with respect to specifically large cases. There are a number of areas of service where there’s a notional base budget provided and then access to contingencies up to what’s actually required.

While it may look like perhaps not enough funding had been identified, actually, when you look at it over the year, it was always anticipated that some additional money would be needed above the actual budget that’s been provided in the service plan. But because it’s unknown at the beginning of the fiscal year, it doesn’t get identified until kind of the end of the fiscal year closes.

Larry Neufeld: Okay. My follow-up to that would be and I think you might have mentioned it in your previous response. Maybe if you could just restate that again. What changes have been made to create a more steady…? So again, you don’t have to be going back and relying as much on contingency?

Steven Veinot: Well, we’re still trying to determine where demand is going to level out at this point.

Our models right now are, as Wendy talked about and as mentioned in the Auditor General’s report, they’ve been based on historical trends in the past. Trying to measure sort of changes in the legal landscape also has its challenges as well.

As we go forward, we are measuring out and working with the ministry directly on how we expect to see changes. Right now our criminal area of law is relatively…. It’s actually turning returning back to pre-pandemic levels.

It’s mainly in our immigration. It’s also through some of the recent changes in federal policy, as actually it was increasing. It’s now levelled off.

Our area that is mainly been increasing is in the area of family. We have recently implemented some changes to the financial eligibility to allow for increased service for people that are experiencing intimate partner violence, in particular.

Larry Neufeld: Okay. thank you for that.

The last question I have for you around the funding component is: have we implemented a system of metrics or best management practices to ensure that we are moving in that direction to stabilize the budget demand or the budget request?

Steven Veinot: We do monitor, obviously, our budget itself as a whole. We also look at it with respect to where our contract demand is growing at and the actual cost per contract as well. We try to measure it with respect to changes in demand and in the program itself, what that actually looks like, and then compare it back to actual costs to see what we’re actually experiencing, to see how our current performance is going to trend us in the future.

Larry Neufeld: Okay. So maybe the way I would ask that maybe a little bit differently is: is there a program or a written procedure or something in place that would allow you to measure that and to be able to report back to us next year on how that went for you?

Steven Veinot: Right now we have a model that forecasts out five years with respect to what the costs are and what the contract values are going to be by area of law. We then provide that on a monthly basis to the ministry as part of our regular forecasting exercise. Then there’s typically a dialogue with the ministry about what we see driving those costs up or down, both from the cost as well as the demand itself.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you. I’m satisfied.

Stephanie Higginson: Thanks for the presentation. Wendy, welcome. Diving right in, hey?

My question is actually — and I’m not sure if you’ll have the answer to it — about the governance structure. You mentioned it as part of the solution, that you guys are working on this together with your board. Someone who’s a former board member, it always comes back to the ultimate responsibility falls with the board.

[10:20 a.m.]

So my wonder is if you guys…. It’s an interesting tricky place to be when you have appointed boards. I wonder what kind of sort of governance capacity planning you’re undertaking in order to make sure that as one that you can, are you able to do that when you have an appointed

so my wonder is if you guys…? It’s an interesting tricky place to be when you have appointed boards. I wonder what kind of sort of governance capacity planning you’re undertaking in order to make sure that as…? One, that you can. Are you able to do that when you have an appointed board?

And two, is this workplan that you’re working on in the response to these recommendations being taken into consideration — the skills necessary for oversight into this being taken into consideration when you’re doing capacity planning for your board to make sure that you get the right folks appointed to the board and able to help move you in this direction?

Wendy Jackson: Multifaceted question. So with respect to Legal Aid B.C.’s ability to…. We can make recommendations based on the skills matrix that the board currently has to both CABRO and the Law Society who make appointments to our board. And so we can identify that our board members undertake that kind of self-assessment from a skills perspective. The legislation sets out and our board governance manual sets out what those criteria should be and where we think we are whenever there’s going to be an upcoming vacancy.

So there are many processes in place to make appropriate recommendations from a skill set perspective. But obviously, we welcome all the board members who are appointed by those who appoint board members to our board.

With respect to capacity planning for the board, we do have a forward calendar. Our board has two working committees: the governance and human resources committee and then the finance and technology committee. Those are the committees that primarily do the work and then feeds up into the board.

We have been reporting to our finance and technology committee with respect to this audit the whole way through. They’re aware of our responses, and we will be engaging our workplan with them. I don’t have it in front of my face, which board meeting we’ll be bringing it to, but they’re aware of the projects.

In fact, I think that we had a finance and technology committee meeting yesterday, and we talked to them about the workplan that we’re undertaking.

Steven Veinot: We also, with respect to our board, have a training component as well. Not necessarily everybody has all aspects that are required for the board. So what we try to do is as a part of our board, as a board orientation, we bring on new board members. They’re socialized with respect to what the requirements are, what the current issues are, what the challenges we’re facing right now are.

We also provide them areas of training that will help them sort of fulfill their roles, either from an IT perspective, a finance perspective or a governance perspective — examples of what we try to provide them, training so that they’re capable and competent to oversee and provide direction and guidance on where we need to go from a board perspective.

Nina Krieger: Thank you very much for the presentation for work of the Auditor’s office and also Legal Aid B.C.

A question related to recommendation 5. Could you speak to what kind of metrics would effectively measure the quality of Legal Aid services?

Wendy Jackson: Recommendation 5: to define and monitor quality of expectations. So this is work that we are going to engage the Bar on, and what constitutes quality legal aid services as distinct, perhaps, from just quality legal services in the greater community.

I would hesitate to speculate at this point before we engage everyone, But obviously, the considerations that we would be looking at are the vulnerabilities of our particular clients. Our clients tend to be particularly higher-needs, perhaps. And so what are the skills and abilities, in addition to being obviously competent in the area of law in which you practice, would we require for legal service providers to be taking on in our contracts?

Steven Veinot: I’d like to also add we have been trying to address quality assurance throughout…. It’s been a topic for a long time. Our focus primarily up until this point has been more on the education and orientation, so that new lawyers that become tariff lawyers or roster lawyers, they understand with respect to what is required of them from a tariff perspective, how they’re going to be doing their billing and provide them sort of competencies within the overall field that they’re going to be working at the best we can.

[10:25 a.m.]

With respect to the audit,

or roster lawyers.

They understand with respect to what is required of them from a tariff perspective, how they’re going to do their billing, and provide them competencies within the overall field that they’re going to be working in — the best we can.

With respect to the audit, it was very much focused on, “What metrics are you tracking to make sure that you’re actually achieving that?” which I think is sort of the next step in the quality journey that we have to be moving towards. As Wendy said, there are going to be a number of stakeholders that we’re going to have to engage as a part of that.

Trying to manage quality in a professional setting is a very challenging thing to do from an engineering perspective, an accounting perspective. But engaging with the Association of Legal Aid Lawyers, the bar in general, would be at this point something we’d want to engage them on so that we can get a holistic sense of what they feel and then how to figure out a way to then manage that they are monitored and keep them accountable after that.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you very much to the Auditor General for this important work, and thanks to the folks at Legal Aid B.C. for the responses.

Obviously, legal aid is critical for, I always go to, vulnerable populations who need fair and equitable access to justice in this case. I appreciate that you mentioned that family law in particular is one where there’s an increase in case files. When I picture those accessing these services, in my mind, I can imagine some really vulnerable folks who are needing these services.

On recommendation 5, we talk about quality assurance, and one of those items is being responsive to the client. A really challenging piece that we saw in the audit was the timelines it was taking to address complaints and that whole process. So I appreciate that there’s been some thought around that, and I’ll have a couple of questions on that.

But before I do ask on it, I’m wondering if in the quality assurance process, that complaints process can really be added as a service delivery metric, if that’s been considered. I think that complaints process is really showing a problem of responsiveness to clients in that case, so I think it is a really important one to highlight here.

Wendy Jackson: To say from a holistic perspective, I think you’re entirely accurate at trying to look at the client journey from beginning to end and what that looks like and how we are engaging with clients. One of the challenges we’ve had has been about tracking those particular metrics. I just offer that, hopefully, given the system changes we’ve made, we as an organization are being better responsive to clients. Then the next step would be, you know, to respond to your question, about engaging that piece of it in the quality assurance work.

Kiel Giddens: Again, I go back to the folks accessing these services. For example, a single mother who has got a complaint that they’re making on their legal representation…. I think there’s been some discussion around how those are handled, but just really the fact that over 56 percent of the complaints were actually abandoned because there wasn’t a response to the acknowledgement letter.

I just picture the folks who are making the complaint. They’re in a vulnerable position, and when it takes over 40 days to actually just acknowledge that complaint…. They’re so wrapped up in their, really, daily struggles that even requiring some sort of acknowledgement…. It should be, you know, really immediate.

I’m wondering how you’re going to get from that 40 days to 14, how that is actually going to happen. I think that’s what I heard — 40 days to 14 days is what you’re looking at for a timeline for acknowledgement.

First of all, how will you get there? Then second, I guess, how is responsiveness to those complaints going to be improved in the long run as well?

Wendy Jackson: What I can say in the short term is that what we’re hoping is that by streamlining the way the complaints are coming into the organization, that will go a long way to being able to be more responsive.

[10:30 a.m.]

I do think that people were identifying, perhaps, that they had a complaint against their lawyer if they felt that that’s what they needed to do to be able to institute a change of counsel, which wasn’t accurate. So the challenge could have been — and, again, we’ll have to look at this a little bit more closely — the fact that people didn’t follow up

to find, perhaps, that they had a complaint against their lawyer if they felt that that’s what they needed to do to be able to institute a change of counsel, which wasn’t accurate.

The challenge could have been — and again, we’ll have to look at this a little bit more closely — the fact that people didn’t follow up with the acknowledgement letter because they didn’t actually have a complaint about their lawyer. That said, the requirement to respond to an acknowledgement letter is no longer required. We will be following up with complaints regardless of whether or not someone writes back to us.

With respect to how we’re going to do that, that’s the work that’s ahead of us. Some of it is policies and procedures, and some of it will be efficiencies, I think.

Peter Milobar (Chair): Any other questions?

Nina Krieger: I’m just curious if the challenges that have been identified in the audit…. Are these common in other jurisdictions in Canada? What are lessons learned, potentially?

Wendy Jackson: Thank you for the question. The answer is yes.

We meet semi-annually with the legal aid plans from across the country. Quality control — compliance — is an issue that is common amongst all the plans, especially because we are trying to, as Steve said earlier, engage with a cohort of people who are not our direct employees. They are professionals, and they are professionally regulated. We need them to want to do the work that we have to do. So it’s that balance. It’s trying to strike that balance.

We have recently engaged some more staff lawyers in the family law context, which will give us an opportunity to review what those comparisons might look like from a staff provision of service as opposed to a private, contracted model of service delivery.

Steven Veinot: I would like to add to that. We have similar programs that we are trying to do to address vulnerable clients across all of the jurisdictions. But also, there are differences between the plans, as well, that need to be noted.

For example, we contract directly with lawyers over a two-year…. The contract can go up to a two-year period of time to provide that support to the client. Some organizations essentially create what’s called a certificate program, where they essentially give a client a certificate that gives them a value up to so much, and they can then contract a lawyer themselves. That lawyer then is paid directly, so there is no…. It’s just a payment mechanism versus a contracting method, which is what we have here in British Columbia.

Peter Milobar (Chair): Okay. Any other questions?

Great. Well, thank you so much, and we look forward to updates on the progress.

Any new business? A motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 10:33 a.m.