The committee met at 9:01 a.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Darlene Rotchford (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Darlene Rochford. I am the MLA for Esquimalt-Colwood, and I am the chair of the Special Committee to Review the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

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

The committee is reviewing the Public Interest Disclosure Act today. We will be receiving briefings from the Ministry of the Attorney General and Office of the Ombudsperson on the act.

I am pleased to welcome our first guests. Today joining us is Barbara Carmichael, Paul Craven, Jasmine Dadachanji, Anita Nadziejko and Dotan Amit for the Ministry of Attorney General presentation.

Barbara Carmichael: Good morning, and thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the committee. I am Barbara Carmichael. I’m the Deputy Attorney General with the Ministry of Attorney General. On my right is Jasmine Dadachanji, who is with our justice services branch. On my left is Dotan Amit, also with the justice services branch. Paul Craven is not here with us today.

I’m moving on to the second slide now. This briefing, as requested by the committee, is a high-level overview of the Public Interest Disclosure Act — or PIDA, as we frequently refer to it — the background to the act, its scope, objectives, key statutory functions and legislative changes that have been made to it. This presentation does not include a discussion of any issues or challenges related to the statute and does not include recommendations for changes. If invited in the future, the Ministry of Attorney General will be pleased to return with a more forward-looking submission.

On to the act’s background. PIDA is British Columbia’s whistleblower legislation. It was introduced in 2018 as part of the response to the Ombudsperson’s 2017 Misfire report into the Ministry of Health employee terminations that occurred in 2012. As you are likely aware, the Misfire report concerned the Ministry of Health’s investigation into alleged wrongdoing by ministry employees and contractors. The report revealed problems with investigative practices that led to terminations that were flawed, resulting in reputational and other very serious damages to individuals.

The Ombudsperson’s report recommended that the government introduce legislation that provides for the reporting, assessment, investigation, resolution and independent oversight of allegations about wrongful conduct within the government of British Columbia.

[9:05 a.m.]

After an expedited legislative development process, the act received royal assent in 2018 and came into force in 2019. British Columbia had the benefit of learning from other jurisdictions with whistleblower protections. PIDA is informed by models

And after an expedited legislative development process, the act received royal assent in 2018 and came into force in 2019.

British Columbia had the benefit of learning from other jurisdictions with whistleblower protections. PIDA is informed by models that exist in other provinces — Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario — as well as Australia, and internationally recognized best practices outlined by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The Attorney General has responsibility for PIDA. This means that the ministry makes changes to the act and regulations as required and was responsible for the phased implementation of the act across the broader public sector. The Public Service Agency, which is a branch of the Ministry of Finance, is responsible for implementing and administering the act within the public service. The public service is the single largest employer under PIDA and the employer who has been under PIDA the longest. Since it came into force, the core public service was the first place that PIDA applied to.

The PSA has a unique perspective, especially given their experience with operationalization and implementation of the act, which will be helpful to this committee. So we would like to suggest, if you’re interested, having them present to this committee as well.

The public service and other government bodies that fall under the act have various responsibilities, like implementing procedures for receiving, reviewing and investigating disclosures, as well as protecting any employees who make disclosures from reprisals. The Ombudsperson also receives and investigates disclosure. The office has the responsibility under the act to provide general oversight of its administration. This means, for example, that the Ombudsperson can make and follow up on recommendations to ministries or government bodies about how to carry out their responsibilities under the act.

I will move on to the fourth slide now. Based on implementation experience in other jurisdictions, the act initially only applied to the public service, independent offices of the legislature, and ministerial assistants and advisors. A plan was created to gradually expand the act’s scope of application to the broader public sector using a phased approach which was consistent with international best practices. This allowed for our ministry, the Public Service Agency and the Ombudsperson’s office to gain experience with the act, learn from mistakes and address issues gradually to allow for a smoother, broader rollout.

Over six phases, coverage of the act was expanded to include tribunals, Crown corps and select non-health agencies, boards and commissions in 2022. The following year, in 2023, the health sector, the public K-to-12 education system and select health agencies, boards and commissions were included. And then last year, in 2024, public post-secondary institutions and selected related agencies, boards and commissions were added. Now that expansion is complete, the act applies to almost 200 public sector organizations and covers over 320,000 employees.

Moving on to the next slide, slide 5. This is now the policy objectives of the act. What are we trying to accomplish with this particular piece of legislation? It creates a pathway through which employees can bring forward concerns about wrongdoing, while being protected from reprisals and without compromising confidential information. I should emphasize that PIDA is designed to complement the many other mechanisms through which employees may report various forms of misconduct, which I’ll go into a little bit more detail later.

The act also establishes procedures to ensure investigations maintain the integrity of disclosures and protect employees from reprisals. These procedures address matters like protecting people’s personal information, protecting confidential information, how to report outcomes and other related matters.

[9:10 a.m.]

Ultimately, the act seeks to promote speak-up culture, where employees feel confident and safe to raise matters of concern. This is designed to improve transparency, which in turn strengthens the public sector’s accountability and deters more people from committing any

seeks to promote speak-up culture, where employees feel confident and safe to raise matters of concern. This is designed to improve transparency, which in turn strengthens the public sector’s accountability and deters more people from committing any serious wrongdoing.

Lastly, the act seeks to guard against frivolous or vexatious disclosure and to discourage disclosures that do not concern the public interest; for example, isolated instances of bullying, individual complaints of poor supervision and discrimination. We have other mechanisms that are better situated to address those kind of allegations.

Moving on to slide 6. The procedures and protections under the act are reserved for serious wrongs. The types of wrongdoing are found in section 7, which is a key section of the act. They are listed here on the slide; but briefly: a serious act or omission that, if proven, would constitute an offence under an enactment of B.C. or Canada; an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons or to the environment, other than if such danger is inherent in the performance of an employee’s duty or functions; a serious misuse of public funds or public assets; gross or systemic mismanagement; or knowingly directing or counselling someone to do any of the above.

The act is not intended to be used to disclose inadvertent errors or misconduct that doesn’t have a public interest component. Some examples of things that aren’t reportable under PIDA: an ordinary employment dispute where an employment for a job thinks, for example, a competition was conducted unfairly or work was assigned in an unfair manner; an isolated case of discrimination or improper conduct in the workplace; or a single incident, for example, of an employee misusing a government taxi card for personal use. These issues can be reported and investigated under other mechanisms: the Standards of Conduct, the Public Service Act, the Employment Standards Act, among others.

A senior official appointed under the act as a designated officer or the Ombudsperson can decline to investigate if they determine that the information provided by a disclosure does not reveal wrongdoing that meets the threshold established by section 7. Limiting the application of the act to situations described in section 7 ensures that the process and protection available under the act are reserved for serious wrongdoing.

Moving on to slide 7. The disclosure provisions apply to employees as defined by the act. These can be employees of ministries and designated government bodies, such as Crown corporations, independent offices of the Legislature, ministerial office staff and OIC appointees.

Groups of individuals can also be designated as employees via regulation for the purposes in the act in order to ensure they are captured under the act and can avail themselves of the protection available. For example, tribunal members who usually function in a way that is independent of government, i.e. they don’t have a traditional employee relationship, are employees for the purposes of PIDA only and not for the purposes of their broader functions.

A former employee can also make a disclosure if the wrongdoing occurred or was discovered when they were employed by the ministry, government body or office.

There’s also recognition that it can be intimidating to make a disclosure. So the act provides employees with a choice of venues through which they can disclose. Under section 12 of the act, disclosures can be made to designated officers of a ministry, government body or office, the employee’s direct supervisor or the Ombudsperson’s Office.

Section 11 also enables an employee who is considering about making a disclosure to request advice. This could be directed to their union representative, a lawyer, the employee’s supervisor, the designated office officer or the Ombudsperson.

[9:15 a.m.]

Most supervisors are not going to be equipped to investigate disclosures of wrongdoing under the act. So there are obligations for a supervisor to then provide the disclosure to a relevant designated officer. An employee can also

or the Ombudsperson.

Most supervisors are not going to be equipped to investigate disclosures of wrongdoing under the act, so there are obligations for a supervisor to then provide the disclosure to a relevant designated officer. An employee can also make a disclosure anonymously. They will, however, need to provide information that establishes they are an employee who’s eligible to make a disclosure under PIDA.

This is about making public disclosures, and a public disclosure, so one that is not to the Ombudsperson, the supervisor or a designated official, is possible in limited circumstances. This is because we need to ensure that sensitive information remains protected. It avoids the release of sensitive information and potentially prevents humiliation or reputational damage to people involved while still allowing that wrongdoing is properly addressed.

The act recognizes that in some rare cases involving imminent danger, there may be a need for someone to disclose publicly. The rules about this are set out in section 16. There is a standard set there that the employee reasonably believes that a matter constitutes an imminent risk of substantial or specific danger to life, health, safety or to the environment. If that standard is met, procedures are set out in section 16, which include consulting and following the directions of the relevant protection officials.

That can be, for example, the provincial health officer, if the matter is health related, the provincial administrator under the Emergency Disaster Management Act, if it’s environmental, or appropriate police force for any other matter.

Other matters, other avenues for disclosing misconduct. PIDA works alongside existing laws and policies to provide comprehensive avenues for employees to report misconduct, ensuring flexibility and the availability of the right tools for each issue. Importantly, while PIDA adds to the tools available for reporting, it does not override existing legal or policy-based opportunities or obligations to disclose misconduct. It also doesn’t affect reprisal protections provided by those mechanisms.

For example, the Public Service Standards of Conduct requires employees to report all forms of misconduct, including issues like bullying and harassment. Another example is the Financial Administration Act, which mandates the disclosure of unauthorized expenditures such as fraud.

Moving on to dealing with investigations of wrongdoing. One of the cornerstones of PIDA is the requirement to review and investigate disclosures according to the procedures established in advance. Sections 19 and 20 provide that a designated officer or the Ombudsperson is responsible for investigating disclosures that they receive. To ensure the integrity of investigations, section 9 requires that the chief executive of everybody subject to the act establishes procedures, for example, about how to review and receive disclosures and setting time periods within which actions will be taken.

Within the B.C. Public Service, the agency designated officer is responsible for investigating disclosures. This role belongs to the assistant deputy minister of employee relations within the B.C. Public Service Agency. The investigations themselves are largely carried out by the Public Service Agency’s employee relations team. This team has significant experience conducting investigations within the workplace.

The act recognizes that designated officers in some organizations, especially smaller ones, may lack the capacity or certain legal abilities to effectively carry out investigations. So it allows a designated officer to request assistance from the Ombudsperson for all or part of an investigation.

[9:20 a.m.]

Another cornerstone of the act is that employees are protected from reprisals, which is necessary to encourage reporting. Section 31 prohibits a person from

or part of an investigation.

Moving on to slide 11. Another cornerstone of the act is that employees are protected from reprisals, which is necessary to encourage reporting. Section 31 prohibits a person from taking or counselling a person to take a list of measures — for example, any kind of disciplinary measures against an employee who, in good faith, made a request for advice, a disclosure, a complaint about a reprisal or cooperated with an investigation under the act.

Only the Ombudsperson has the authority to investigate a complaint about a reprisal. There need only be prima facie evidence to initiate an investigation of whether a reprisal occurred. This is meant to be a low threshold. In practice, it means that the evidence required to trigger an investigation is quite minimal in circumstances of an allegation of a reprisal.

Section 41 of the act makes it an offence to contravene the anti-reprisal provision and other provisions, and a person is liable for up to $25,000 for the first offence and up to $100,000 for a subsequent offence.

Slide 13. This is the legislative history, with key amendments. The act has been amended twice — once in 2019 and once in 2021. The 2019 amendments added the then newly reinstated Office of the Human Rights Commissioner to the act’s definition of “office,” which again includes all independent offices of the legislature.

Interjection.

Barbara Carmichael: Oh, did I? I missed slide 12. Sorry. Thank you.

Interjection.

Barbara Carmichael: Slide 12, notification and reporting. Another element that must be present to encourage reporting is that people need to know that their complaints are being acted on, and there has to be transparency for the public to provide reassurance that allegations of wrongdoing are in fact being taken seriously.

Every public sector entity subject to PIDA must establish an annual report which includes certain statistics — for example, the number of disclosures received, including referrals of disclosures, and the number that were acted on as well as the number that were not acted on.

The Ombudsperson has to publish a similar annual report but with additional information — for example, the number of recommendations the Ombudsperson has made and whether the ministry, government body or office has implemented the recommendations.

There’s also a requirement for the Ombudsperson to notify a person who made a disclosure about a decision to begin, refuse to begin or discontinue an investigation about their disclosure. The Ombudsperson also has a requirement to notify the chief executive of the relevant public sector entity.

Now I will move on to slide 13. In 2019, as I mentioned, the act was expanded to also apply to the reinstated Office of the Human Rights Commissioner. And then there were also amendments to section 3. Section 3 establishes that by default, the act overrides confidentiality provisions found in other legislation. This ensures that employees aren’t unduly prevented from disclosing a serious wrongdoing and that they can benefit from PIDA’s protection.

Prior to the amendment, the section only applied in relation to other acts. The word “act” has been struck and replaced with “enactment,” which is a broader category, as enactment includes statutes, regulations and other legislative instruments. The other sections were amended consequentially to align with this change.

[9:25 a.m.]

And then finally, the amendments strengthened reprisal protections for employees and contractors. Sections 31 and 32 previously stated that a person must not take or direct others to take a reprisal against an employee or contractor solely or only by reason that they had participated in an act which is protected under PIDA. The words “solely” and “only” were struck out because they were interpreted as weakening the reprisal protections by making them not

others to take a reprisal against an employee or contractor solely or only by reason that they had participated in an act which is protected under PIDA. The words “solely” and “only” were struck out because they were interpreted as weakening the reprisal protections by making them not apply when an adverse measure was only partially taken because of reprisal and may have been partially taken for some other matter.

Sections 31(3) and 32(2) were also added to clarify that adverse measures taken for the purposes of managing or terminating an employment relationship, contract or agreement are not prohibited as reprisals as long as they are not taken because of the person’s participation in a whistleblowing activity. So the whistleblowing itself cannot stop an otherwise justified termination, for example, of a contract or the employment relationship.

On slide 14 is the second round of amendments, which came in 2021. They made several clarifications and addressed matters related to notification, reporting, governance and protections. There were many amendments. I will walk you through the highlights.

The term “advice” was added to the definitions, and amendments were made throughout the act to make it explicit that requesting advice about PIDA and not just going through with a disclosure is a protected act. So the protections kick in at the point someone approaches somebody else for advice about a potential disclosure under PIDA.

Section 31 was also amended to improve protections. It clarified that it is prohibited to take a reprisal against an employee on the basis that they previously made a complaint of a reprisal.

Section 25, which provided that certain powers and protections from the Ombudsperson Act apply to investigations conducted by the Ombudsperson under PIDA, was repealed and its contents were moved ahead in the act to section 3(3). The amendments also created better consistency between PIDA and the Ombudsperson Act by disapplying inconsistent or redundant provisions related to reprisal protections and the Ombudsperson’s statutory immunity.

Moving on to section 21, it was amended to require the Ombudsperson to notify the chief executive, rather than a designated officer, of a decision to investigate the chief executive’s ministry, government body or office. This is to ensure that the person ultimately accountable for responding to any recommendations that come out of a report is involved in the process, starting from the original notification of the investigation.

Section 22 was amended to clarify that the Ombudsperson must refuse to investigate or stop investigating if a disclosure relates primarily to the exercise of an adjudicative function of a court, tribunal or other statutory decision-maker. This was done to protect the independence of these adjudicative decision-makers and to recognize that PIDA should not be used to investigate matters that have already been dealt with as a matter of law in a more appropriate forum.

Section 27 was amended to provide that under the reporting procedure for investigations, the chief executive does not get a full copy of the report on an investigation and may only receive a summary report if they were initially alleged to have participated in or ultimately have found to have been responsible for a wrongdoing. This made it so that the chief executive is treated in the same manner as any other wrongdoer and only gets a summary of the Ombudsperson’s report.

Section 41(5) was amended to increase the limitation period for prosecuting an offence, such as the reprisal provisions we discussed a few minutes ago, from the default six months to a full two years.

[9:30 a.m.]

The last section I’m going to highlight is section 48. It was amended to ensure that the authority to prescribe reasons not to investigate disclosures is broad enough to also allow for prescribing reasons not to investigate complaints about reprisals. This was done in response to the Ombudsperson’s experience that by the time they received a complaint of reprisal

the authority to prescribe reasons not to investigate disclosures is broad enough to also allow for prescribing reasons not to investigate complaints about reprisals. This was done in response to the Ombudsperson’s experience that by the time they received a complaint of reprisal and assessed it, there’s a likelihood that the six-month limitation period had already expired.

So those are the opening remarks, the end of the briefing, and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have. I’ll go to you first for questions.

Lawrence Mok: I think I have one or two questions. On page eight of the presentation, can you give an example of an imminent substantial danger?

Jasmine Dadachanji: I will let my colleagues chime in, but I think an example of an imminent danger would be, for example, a dam that was potentially going to burst and cause horrific damage.

Lawrence Mok: Any other examples from your colleagues?

Jasmine Dadachanji: At this point we are doing hypotheticals.

Barbara Carmichael: Can you think of any other hypotheticals that might be done?

Dotan Amit: Yeah, it is a pre-determined….

Barbara Carmichael: Potential would be maybe something like dealing with an avian flu outbreak that was not being properly disclosed or addressed.

Lawrence Mok: I see. Okay.

Barbara Carmichael: That’s really designed to be incredibly serious, that has some real potential life-threatening or environmental disaster.

Lawrence Mok: Maybe I can give an example. Maybe someone is trying to blow up a bridge. Things like that?

Barbara Carmichael: If that was, for example, something that someone became aware of through their employment, and it was not being appropriately treated, that is possible, yes.

Lawrence Mok: My next question is on page 11. I missed the section 4. Page 11, point no. 4, with regards to the penalty, you mentioned section 4, or subsection. I missed the subsection.

Barbara Carmichael: Section 41 is the provision that makes it an offence to contravene the anti-reprisal provisions or other provisions.

Lawrence Mok: Okay good.

Then on page 13. Again, I might have missed…. You mentioned two sections. Is it section 31(3) and section 32?

Barbara Carmichael: It’s 32(2).

Lawrence Mok: Oh, okay, 32(2).

Barbara Carmichael: Yeah, and 31(3). Okay good.

Lawrence Mok: Maybe one last question. Oh, no.

Darlene Rotchford (Chair): Thanks Lawrence. I’ll go to Jennifer next.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I have several questions, so maybe I’ll ask one. Then, Rosalyn, did you have questions as well? So maybe we’ll….

Darlene Rotchford (Chair): Just remember, through the Chair, folks.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you.

Many of the other offices have a no-wrong-door policy, if someone comes forward to disclose. If the PIDA legislation is not the appropriate venue, they’re redirected. So we’ve talked a lot about what’s included, what’s not included. Is there training, are there mechanisms within this process for people to be redirected to a more appropriate venue for disclosures or complaints?

[9:35 a.m.]

Barbara Carmichael: The details of which I think the PSA would be in the best place to provide, but it is our understanding that that happens. Or the Ombudsperson can speak about their experience if as

Barbara Carmichael: The details of which, I think, the PSA would be in the best place to provide, but that is our understanding — that that happens. Or the Ombudsperson can speak about their experience. If, as a chief executive of a ministry, someone came to me, I would have an obligation, not just because it was the right thing to do in a No Wrong Door, but to report any wrongdoing that came to my attention independently, for example, under the Financial Administration Act or the Public Service Act.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. I think this is just a follow-up, really, to that question. We discussed that there are a lot of layers and a lot of ways that people can report. One of them is to their direct supervisor. You mentioned that sometimes there’s not expertise in order to investigate what could be a complex or long-standing complaint.

Again, this is perhaps a better question for the PSA, but is there standard training for supervisors? Is there: “I’m looking for a training module.” How do people have consistent implementation when they receive a complaint? How do they even know that they’re not qualified to investigate?

Barbara Carmichael: They would have to report it to the agency-delegated officer, who would help them with that.

But again, there is training for supervisors on investigations in non-PIDA contexts, as well, about who you talk to if you think that there’s something that may have to be investigated. Again, the PSA could give you more details of that training. I’m not sure exactly if it’s included in…. You know, there are some basics of supervision courses that are available to the public service. As far as what modules or anything like that that it would be in, they’re in the best position to answer that question.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. That maybe was a little too in-the-weeds there.

I’m looking now for some discussion about the statistical analysis of the types of complaints that are received, which ministries they’re in. I noticed that the Ombudsman is responsible for going back to the ministries, letting them know that there have been complaints.

But in terms of cross-ministry analysis, where does that fall? Like, interministry analysis.

Barbara Carmichael: If there’s an investigation or a report that impacts two or three ministries — is that what you’re thinking of?

Jennifer Blatherwick: I would say that would be included, but also a conversation about the number and the type of complaints compared between ministries, the volume of complaints year-over-year, the time of resolution of complaints — the things that would be most usefully compared between different ministries.

Barbara Carmichael: The stats for all of the investigations go into the Public Service Agency ethics report, annual report and then the Ombudsperson also provides a report that I’m sure the Ombudsperson’s office can provide more details about.

Again, the Ombudsperson can talk a little bit more about the specifics, but in my experience, when there’s been an investigation that involves more than one ministry, all of the ministries receive notification of at least their potential part. And recommendations can be made to multiple ministries as well.

In 2023 — for statistics, disclosures of wrongdoing — there were 74 disclosures dealt with by the Ombudsperson, eight dealt with by the PSA and 16 dealt with by health authorities.

In findings of wrongdoing for that same year, one from the Ombudsperson, zero from the PSA and one from the health authority.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. You mentioned the employee relations team deals with the bulk of the cases that are coming forward?

Barbara Carmichael: The ones that are investigated internally within the public service.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. And what kind of caseload do they carry year to year?

[9:40 a.m.]

Barbara Carmichael: I think you’d have to ask the PSA that. I’m sorry. They do investigations. For example, if there is some sort of employment wrongdoing, they will often conduct investigations there.

They also have a contract with external people, primarily external lawyers that are also qualified, and they can send investigations externally where appropriate, not

conduct investigations there. They also have a contract with external people, primarily external lawyers, that are also qualified, and they can send investigations externally, where appropriate. Not necessarily sure if that’s done in the PIDA investigations, but it certainly can free up capacity to do PIDA investigations by referring other investigations out.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Then last one. Just looking at the timelines being changed from six months to two years, did I understand correctly that those are the timelines under which the investigation has to be reported.

When we’re talking about someone who is a past employee, what are the timelines for which…. What is the limit of time under which they could report a wrongdoing? Does that make sense? Am I asking the right question?

Barbara Carmichael: I’m not sure we have a limit, do we?

Jennifer Blatherwick: Statute of limitations, sort of.

Barbara Carmichael: I think the two years is for the reprisals. So the extension of the limitation period for six months to two years deals with being able to prosecute someone for committing an offence. for example, an anti-reprisal. By taking a reprisal against an employee, they can be charged with and found guilty of an offence. That is the limitation period that’s extended from six months to two years.

As far as a limitation period for wrongdoing, we’re not aware that there is one.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Just one last question. I’m so sorry.

The legislation came into effect in 2019. So could a wrongdoing be reported prior to the act’s existence? Like, could a wrong, could a misdeed be reported from 2016?

Barbara Carmichael: Yes.

Jennifer Blatherwick: There you go. That’s it. Thank you.

Rosalyn Bird: I do have a couple of questions. First, thank you very much for the presentation. It was very informational and helpful, actually. I appreciate you guys coming out and doing that this morning.

First one is just kind of a process and protection for all of those that are sitting on the committee. If we’ve been made aware of something through our offices as MLAs that may fall under this act while we’re sitting on this committee, should we be referring that to somebody else — if we’ve been made aware of information that may actually fall under the act? Is there any conflict with that information and us sitting on the committee?

Barbara Carmichael: The act itself, the employees…. Members of the Legislative Assembly are not covered as employees.

Rosalyn Bird: Maybe I’m asking the question incorrectly. If I’ve been given information that I know should be reported through this act, I’m just worried that there…. I want to make sure there isn’t a conflict of interest with us reviewing this particular legislation if we’ve been disclosed of something that is being reported.

Barbara Carmichael: I think that if you…. That’s a question that, maybe, you might want to explore with the Clerk’s office.

Rosalyn Bird: Okay.

Second question is in reference to slide 12. Does that report…. Does everybody on page 4 do annual reports?

Barbara Carmichael: I believe that’s what gets consolidated into the ethics report by the Public Service Agency, and then they could provide you more details if you if you want them.

Rosalyn Bird: Then slide 13, you were talking…. I’m just curious how the act impacts NDAs?

Barbara Carmichael: Can you give me an example, because I certainly think that the act is designed so that an NDA should not in any way prohibit someone from making a disclosure.

[9:45 a.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: Okay. So that was my point. Unfortunately, there’s a large use of NDAs across government, multiple industries currently, and I just want to make sure that if somebody has signed an NDA and has, possibly, left an employment situation and then wants to report post-leaving whether or not that NDA prevents them from doing so when there was legitimate wrongdoing.

Barbara Carmichael: Subsection 45(1) says that a provision in a contract or agreement is not enforced

and has possibly left an employment situation, and then wants to report, post-leaving, whether or not that NDA prevents them from doing so when there was legitimate wrongdoing.

Subsection 45(1) sets out: “A provision in a contract or agreement is not enforceable to the extent that it would prevent a request for advice, a disclosure, a complaint about a reprisal....”

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): So basically it won’t. Okay.

Barbara Carmichael: The act is designed so that that provision in an NDA is unenforceable.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Okay, thank you.

Last question. It kind of combines a couple of slides — slides 11 and 15 — and it’s kind of an odd question. If a piece of legislation has been passed, and it has administrative or disciplinary processes that are built into that legislation, and there are reprisals, based on that legislation, that that employee or individual is impacted by, are they still able to go through the act and/or the Ombudsman’s office to see if that is actually the case — for confirmation?

Barbara Carmichael: Is your question that if someone were disciplined under a provision of a different act, and they were an employee for the purposes of PIDA, could they ask the Ombudsperson to reinvestigate whatever the allegations were against them to see if the discipline or reprisal that was taken was appropriate?

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Yes, but what I’m speaking about specifically.... I’m thinking about a specific piece of legislation that has some significant disciplinary and/or administrative processes built into it, that many of the people impacted by that legislation do not feel are appropriate and/or.... So if they become...

Barbara Carmichael: I think it would depend. There are provisions that do say, if a matter has been resolved appropriately in another forum, that the PIDA Act is not an appellate body, for lack of a better word. However, if they made some sort of allegation of the administration of that other act that fell into the definition of serious wrongdoing, then that potentially could be the subject of an investigation.

Lawrence Mok: On slide 7 — I don’t know whether I’m repeating Jennifer’s question — my question is with regard to a former employee. Is there a timeline for a former employee to make a disclosure? Is it six months? Two years? I’m a bit confused. Is there a timeline for a former employee...?

Barbara Carmichael: We’re just checking right now. If you could give us a minute, please, just to take a look.

Lawrence Mok: Oh, okay.

Barbara Carmichael: If the employee left their employment after the act came into force, then there isn’t a limit.

Lawrence Mok: The former employee, for instance, can make a disclosure, maybe five years later or eight years later, that kind of thing?

Barbara Carmichael: There’s nothing in the act that prevents that. However, I think that the length of time for the disclosure and the evidence available may all go into whether or not an investigation proceeds, or whether or not the disclosure can establish the serious threshold that’s necessary to proceed. But someone who left government in, say, 2012 would not be able to report on something that happened before they left.

[9:50 a.m.]

Lawrence Mok: Yes.

Maybe one more question, again on slide seven. Disclosures can also be made anonymously. In your record.... Let’s say we go back one or two years, to 2024 or 2023. Do you have a record of how many disclosures were made anonymously? I’m just kind of curious.

also be made anonymously.

In your record…. Let’s say we go back one or two years — 2024-2023. Do you have a record of how many disclosures that were made anonymously? I’m just kind of curious.

Barbara Carmichael: I think that the PSA and the Ombudsperson would be able to answer that question from how many that they have received. I am not aware of the specific numbers of complaints that have been received anonymously.

Darlene Rotchford (Chair): Any further questions for this committee?

All right, I’d like to thank you for coming in, for your presentation. We’ll just take a five minute recess, folks.

The committee recessed from 9:50 a.m. to 10:01 a.m.

The committee recessed from 9:50 a.m. to 10:01 a.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Darlene Rotchford (Chair): I’d like to bring the committee back to order.

I am pleased to welcome our guests for their presentation from the Office of the Ombudsperson, Jay Chalke, the Ombudsperson; David Paradiso, Deputy Ombudsperson, Investigation, Intake and Early Resolutions, as well as Stewart Cavers, director of Public Interest Disclosure Act.

And I will hand it to you for your presentation.

Office of the Ombudsperson

Jay Chalke (Ombudsperson): Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, Chair, Deputy Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. As the Chair said, I’m joined by David Paradiso, the Deputy Ombudsperson on my left, your right, and Stewart Cavers on my right, your left, the Director of Public Interest Disclosure in our office.

Together, I want to acknowledge that we’re on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations, and that our work extends across the province, encompassing the territories of many different First Nations across the province. In making that acknowledgement, I want to reaffirm my personal commitment to reconciliation and recognize that my office has a material role in assessing how Indigenous people are treated by the public authorities that we investigate.

Also, I want to start just by thanking the committee for taking on this important undertaking. I know it will be a thorough and thoughtful review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. I’ve already been very impressed by the questions that we’ve already seen. Comprehensive periodic reviews are really important for oversight laws in general and, in this case, whistleblower legislation, to ensure that those laws remain relevant and adaptive and effective. And the role of legislators, when one is dealing with oversight laws as opposed to the executive branch of government is particularly important.

I want to thank the Deputy Attorney General for starting things off this morning with her overview of the act. I’m sure that’s been very helpful. We’ll endeavor to minimize overlap but there’s a little bit of that that’s probably inevitable.

Before turning to our specific role under PIDA, I want to just briefly introduce our broader mandate. The Office of the Ombudsperson is an independent office of the Legislature. We carry out our work impartially and confidentially, ensuring fairness in public administration for all British Columbians. And for the past 45 years we’ve been investigating complaints about unfair treatment and systemic issues in public services under a 1977 law first known as the Ombudsman Act, now the Ombudsperson Act, making findings and providing recommendations aimed at resolving immediate problems and preventing future harm.

While we’re a relatively small team, we punch above our weight. Our oversight under the Ombudsperson Act extends to over 1,000 public bodies across the province. And where I believe it’s in the public interest, I have the authority to issue public reports such as when a public body does not respond adequately to an investigation were conducting.

Turning now to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, also known as PIDA, and our more recent mandate under that act. As you know PIDA is B.C.’s legislative framework for ensuring public sector employees can disclose serious wrongdoing safely and without fear of reprisal. It promotes transparency, accountability and organizational integrity. Our office’s work under PIDA involves four interconnected functions.

[10:05 a.m.]

First, we provide confidential advice to potential disclosures. Present and past employees often seek guidance on whether their workplace concerns qualify as wrongdoing, what protections are available and what the process entails. Wrongdoing under PIDA includes significant breaches of trust, serious misuse of public funds

First, we provide confidential advice to potential disclosers. Present and past employees often seek guidance on whether their workplace concerns qualify as wrongdoing, what protections are available and what the process entails. Wrongdoing under PIDA includes significant breaches of trust; serious misuse of public funds; gross mismanagement; and threats to health, safety or the environment.

Second, my office investigates disclosures of serious wrongdoing. After a two-part assessment confirming jurisdiction and determining whether an investigation is warranted, we investigate serious matters to uncover the facts and recommend either localized or systemic improvements where needed.

Third, our office investigates complaints of reprisal. We’re the only office with authority to investigate allegations that an employee has faced adverse consequences like demotion, termination or harassment for making a disclosure or cooperating with a PIDA investigation.

And fourth, we assist public bodies with their internal investigations. Senior officials can seek advice from our office on effectively managing investigations, including best practices. For example, designated officers, who are specially appointed individuals and the primary contacts for employees seeking to make internal guidance or intending to make a disclosure, have explicit responsibilities, such as providing confidential advice, protecting the confidentiality of disclosures, and managing and conducting investigations in accordance with specific procedures that are required by the act.

If a public body faces challenges such as potential conflicts of interest or insufficient resources to investigate properly, they have the option to refer the disclosure directly to us for investigation.

Turning to slide 3, the choice model. That brings me to an important foundational principle behind PIDA — this notion of choice. We believe that effective whistleblower protection is not just about enforcing legal standards; it’s about nurturing an organizational culture where integrity, openness and trust are truly valued. The choice model is central to that goal. It ensures that public employees have a choice about how they can raise concerns about wrongdoing. Employees can choose to report internally within their organization or externally to our office.

Reporting internally allows organizations to respond swiftly, drawing on their deep operational knowledge of their own organization. Reporting externally offers the protection of independent oversight that we bring, free from internal pressures.

One useful way to think of the choice model is as a pyramid or a triangle that you see on your slide. The base of the pyramid is broadest, with six places where employees can obtain advice about their workplace concerns from their supervisor, their designated officer or my office. But the act also authorizes them to seek advice from their union, employee association or from a private lawyer. So in total, six different options.

Moving up the pyramid to disclosures of wrongdoing, there are three routes for a current or former employee who wants to do that: internally within the organization, to their supervisor or designated officer, or externally to my office.

At the top, there’s one avenue. If an employee believes they faced reprisal, that allegation is made to our office. This maintains the highest possible standard of impartiality and protection in those sensitive cases. The choice model strengthens employee trust and helps foster a stronger, more ethical public sector culture.

Turning to slide 4. The Deputy Attorney General alluded to this. To fully understand PIDA, it’s worth revisiting how it came to be. In 2017, our office released the report Misfire: The 2012 Ministry of Health Employment Terminations and Related Matters. This investigation was about how the Ministry of Health mishandled the wrongful dismissal of several employees and contractors after concerns were raised about pharmaceutical research in and relating to the ministry.

The ministry’s flawed approach showed how badly things could go without a proper scheme in place to handle such matters. One employee died by suicide shortly after their dismissal.

At the time, B.C. lacked a clear, consistent framework for protecting employees who reported concerns about serious wrongdoing. Policies were inconsistent, legal protections were fragmented, and employees who spoke up faced significant risk. There was an absence of procedures for how investigations were to be conducted.

[10:10 a.m.]

We recommended, in recommendation 32 of that report, that government follow Canada and most provinces by introducing comprehensive public interest disclosure legislation to establish clear standards for disclosure, investigation, resolution and independent oversight. Government accepted this recommendation, and the work to draft and implement the Public Interest Disclosure Act began.

Our recommendation had suggested a new stand-alone independent

interest disclosure legislation to establish clear standards for disclosure, investigation, resolution and independent oversight.

Government accepted this recommendation, and the work to draft and implement the Public Interest Disclosure Act began. Our recommendation had suggested a new stand-alone, independent office of the Legislature for this purpose, the model used at the federal level. In the end, government assigned this new role to my office rather than create a new officer.

Today PIDA provides critical protections that were absent during the events that led to Misfire. It’s a powerful reminder of why continuous improvement and strong oversight remain essential.

Turning to slide 5. Turning now to PIDA’s implementation, I want to highlight both the foundational work led by the Ministry of the Attorney General and the role our office played in supporting the successful launch of the legislation. Following the release of Misfire, the Ministry of the Attorney General led the policy development to create the legislation.

While we respect the undertakings we made regarding our involvement in the legislative drafting process, I can speak about our broader role in preparing for PIDA’s rollout. We actively participated in a reference group alongside leaders from the Public Service Agency, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Public Sector Employers Council. Together we discussed critical questions, including whether PIDA should be introduced across the entire public sector at once or rolled out in phases and, if the latter, which sectors should be prioritized.

Our advice supported the decision made by the Attorney General to implement PIDA in seven phases over five years. We believed strongly that a phased approach would give organizations time to build capacity, develop procedures and foster a culture of integrity around speaking up. We prepared a detailed business case requesting escalating permanent funding in order to do this work, recognizing that successful implementation would require investments in education, investigative resources and relationship-building across the public sector.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, in this room, approved this request, enabling us to establish a small PIDA implementation team. Our preparations were grounded in extensive research. We examined whistleblower frameworks from across Canada and internationally, drawing insights from Australia, Ireland and the U.K. We adapted leading global guidelines to apply them in accordance with B.C. law.

We referenced the Canadian Standards Association whistleblowing systems guidance and met with its lead authority Sandy Boucher to obtain perspectives on policy and procedure. We reviewed the work of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, and we consulted with Canadian academic experts, including Professor Carol Boydell from Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

B.C. was the last province in Canada to pass whistleblowing legislation, so the lessons from our colleagues in provinces across Canada and at the federal level were particularly helpful. By learning from their real-world experiences, both their successes and the challenges they faced, we gained crucial insights into what approaches worked best and where obstacles tended to arise. Drawing from these lessons, we developed an operational practice grounded in recognized best practices and careful interpretation of the legislation.

We developed a trauma-informed, fair and proportionate approach to intake, investigation and follow-up under PIDA, one that acknowledges the significant step disclosures take when coming forward and ensures fairness to all parties involved throughout the investigative process.

We continued to collaborate closely with the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Public Service Agency throughout the stages of implementation, especially the early ones, including operational planning, supporting consistent messaging across the public sector, developing training materials and identifying areas where legislative amendments could strengthen the act. These preparations ensured that we were ready, not just to conduct investigations but to support the public sector in creating the culture and conditions necessary for PIDA to succeed.

Turning to slide 6 regarding phase 1, initial implementation. When PIDA officially came into force, it first applied to core government, and this included about 35,000 employees across all the government ministries and the offices of the Legislature. Implementation of PIDA within core government was a collaborative effort between our office, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Public Service Agency. From the outset, we stressed the importance of maintaining consistency in messaging, interpretation of the act and operational procedures — critical for building employee trust.

We jointly developed and delivered comprehensive training programs tailored to specific audiences. General employees were trained on their rights and responsibilities under PIDA, supervisors received specialized instructions on how to handle disclosures appropriately, and executives, including assistant deputy ministers, who serve as ethics advisers, were provided additional leadership-focused training on their role in fostering a speak-up culture.

[10:15 a.m.]

I want to acknowledge the work that government did in that regard.

For the offices of the Legislature, we created an ongoing forum where the designated officers, all deputies, could discuss ethical practices, share challenges and learn from each other. We worked to enhance our intake and triage systems internally so that public sector

role in fostering a speak-up culture, and I want to acknowledge the work that government did in that regard.

For the offices of the Legislature, we created an ongoing forum where the designated officers, all deputies, could discuss ethical practices, share challenges and learn from each other. We worked to enhance our intake and triage systems internally so that public sector employees who contacted us received timely, supportive and confidential service.

We also identified areas where the legislation could benefit from early clarification and worked with the Ministry of the Attorney General to propose amendments, as you heard from the Deputy Attorney General. Those took place in 2019 and 2021.

The phase 1 rollout set a strong foundation, both operationally and culturally, for the broader application of PIDA across B.C.’s public sector.

Following the success of phase 1, the Ministry of the Attorney General announced in July 2021 the staged rollout of PIDA across the broader public sector. The schedule is ambitious but necessary to ensure manageable implementation across hundreds of diverse organizations. It was also taking place, as you may recall, during the pandemic, which made implementation more challenging and probably meant that it was, in my view, probably about a year late in getting going on phase 2, etc., but completely understandable.

Here’s how the subsequent phases unfolded. Phase 2, which took place in April 2022, was applied to agencies, boards and commissions, including key regulatory bodies, and this added about 1,500 current employees.

Phase 3, later that year in December, Crown corporations and other public entities added 18,000 current public employees.

Phase 4, in June 2023, added the health authorities and related health organizations, which was a major expansion covering large and complex organizations, and that added 126,000 more current employees.

Phase 5, later that year, added the K-to-12 school districts and related educational organizations. That added a further 78,000 current employees.

Phase 6, in June of last year, added some post-secondary institutions. That added some 21,000 then current employees.

Phase 7, in December of last year, added the major research universities of the province and WorkSafeBC, and that added a further 38,000 current employees.

So by the end of 2024, and as it stands now, just under a third of a million current public sector employees across nearly 200 public sector organizations, plus tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of former employees have disclosure rights under PIDA. This represents really a remarkable ninefold expansion from the 35,000 employees covered in phase 1.

Throughout the phased rollout, our office assumed a lead role in providing training, support and guidance to newly covered organizations in phases 2 through 7. Given our direct role supporting employees, developing training and assisting with implementation questions, we proposed that our office serve as that primary support, and government agreed. So while it was the logical step for us to take, knowing that we would be the ones involved with those organizations on a go-forward basis, it was a big responsibility for our little office.

In preparation for each phase, we met individually with the chief executives and implementation teams of every organization coming under PIDA. These meetings allowed us to explain legislative obligations in detail, provide tailored advice based on each organization’s sector, size and internal structures, and support the development of internal disclosure procedures and designated officer roles.

We also engaged with employer associations and employer and employee representative organizations to help ensure employees were aware of their rights and the protections available under PIDA and that unions were aware of their role under the act in giving the employees of public bodies advice about possible disclosures.

We met with legal organizations to similarly ensure the legal community understood PIDA’s protections, including the important legislative role of lawyers in providing protected advice to potential disclosers.

Recognizing each sector had unique operational realities, we tailored our resources and support accordingly. For example, in the health sector, we supported the creation of a working group comprising leaders from each health authority to coordinate consistent implementation. In the post-secondary sector, we work alongside the research universities president’s council to facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing across research universities.

To further support sector-specific needs, we contracted specialists familiar with the unique structures and dynamics of the different sectors, including collective agreements, ensuring that our investigative teams had the necessary background knowledge to engage effectively with disclosures from across the public sector.

[10:20 a.m.]

We also developed a comprehensive suite of resources to support organizations and employees at every level. To further educate the public sector, we began hosting an annual PIDA conference, bringing together employers, academics, whistleblowers and advocates to engage in broader aspirational discussions about ethical leadership, whistleblowing culture and the challenges and

We also developed a comprehensive suite of resources to support organizations and employees at every level.

To further educate the public sector, we began hosting an annual PIDA conference, bringing together employers, academics, whistleblowers and advocates to engage in broader aspirational discussions about ethical leadership, whistleblowing culture and the challenges and risks faced by those who speak up. The annual conferences provided important spaces for reflection, learning and shared commitment to public sector integrity.

Through these initiatives, our goal was to present the implementation of PIDA as a transformative opportunity to strengthen ethical leadership, accountability and public trust across the public sector.

I’m now going to ask David and Stewart to outline some of the learning resources that we developed.

David Paradiso: To support organizations and employees in the long term, we developed an extensive range of online resources specifically tailored to the different roles under PIDA. Our dedicated PIDA website acts as a centralized hub, offering checklists to chief executives for successful PIDA implementation, including critical responsibilities both during and after the rollout.

For designated officers, we have an 80-page detailed toolkit featuring everything they need to conduct an appropriate assessment and investigation, including templates, checklists, guidance on maintaining confidentiality, how to draft findings and step-by-step investigative best practices. For supervisors, we have practical guidance documents and confidentiality tips to help supervisors handle disclosures appropriately and sensitively. For employees, we have FAQs, frequently asked questions, explaining what constitutes wrongdoing, how disclosures are made, protections available and what to expect during an investigation.

We created a wealth of resources across multiple formats to make the material as accessible and supportive as possible. Many employees accessing these resources might be facing stressful situations. So plain language and clear, user-friendly guidance were non-negotiable. All resources were designed with the long view in mind, to build institutional knowledge that could sustain a positive culture of speaking up, well beyond the initial implementation phase.

I’ll turn it over to Stewart to talk about the actual hands-on web-based courses we have developed.

Stewart Cavers: A key cornerstone of our education and engagement efforts was the creation of “Speaking Up Safely: Rights and Responsibilities Under B.C.’s Public Interest Disclosure Act.” It’s a free, interactive, one-hour e-learning course developed specifically for employees, both current and former, working under PIDA’s jurisdiction.

It provides clear explanations of what serious wrongdoing looks like under the act, step-by-step guidance on how to seek advice or make a disclosure, a full breakdown of confidentiality protections and reprisal safeguards, an overview of the role of our office and the independent investigation process and reassurance about the employee’s right to choose whether to report internally or externally under the choice model.

“Speaking Up Safely” has become a flagship training tool across the public sector. Many organizations adopted it as their primary method for educating employees about their rights and responsibilities under the act. Its success extended beyond British Columbia, with several other provinces and territories referencing or adapting the resource to support their own whistleblower protection frameworks.

“Speaking Up Safely” has done more than just explain the law. It’s helped demystify whistleblowing, address common fears and reinforce that employees have strong, meaningful protections in B.C.

Building on this success, we also created a 30-minute supervisor webinar, offering targeted training for supervisors about how to respond to advice requests and disclosures under PIDA, and a designated officers fundamentals course, providing deep practical training for the individuals tasked with assessing and investigating internal disclosures, helping them to foster a speak-up culture while ensuring confidentiality and fairness.

I’ll turn it back over to Jay.

Jay Chalke: Thank you, Stewart. Thank you, David.

Our office has become a national leader in supporting whistleblower protection across the public sector. Through this learning approach, we’ve created a distinct respectful environment in British Columbia that colleagues in other jurisdictions have noted. Unlike some other jurisdictions, we’ve not seen the persistent legal battles over jurisdiction access to information or investigative authority that have arisen in some other jurisdictions with their whistleblowing law.

[10:25 a.m.]

This success was not accidental. It was built through consistent, proactive engagement, working collaboratively with employers, unions, employer associations and legal organizations well before PIDA came into force for each sector. It was supported by the extensive resources we developed, the tailored guidance we provided and the trust fostered through our annual conference.

built through consistent, proactive engagement, working collaboratively with employers, unions, employer associations and legal organizations well before PIDA came into force for each sector. It was supported by the extensive resources we developed and the tailored guidance we provided and the trust fostered through our annual conference.

Today, we continue to be regularly approached by executives and public interest disclosure leads about seeking advice on investigations, questions about the act, and support in fostering a strong culture of integrity within their organizations. We’re proud that our approach has built a trusted, stable environment for public interest disclosure in British Columbia.

Turning to slide 10 about our support to you. Since the introduction of PIDA, the scale and complexity of our work has increased dramatically. In 2019, as I said, some 35,000 core government employees were covered, and now it’s nearly one-third of a million covering 200 public bodies, along with tens of thousands of former employees. Each new sector brought new complexity and new disclosure volumes, and with every phase the number of disclosures we received and investigations conducted by our office steadily grew. In the past year alone, the number of disclosures we received increased by 115 percent.

Despite the choice model allowing employees to report either internally to their organization or externally to our office, we continue to receive the overwhelming majority of all disclosures made across the public sector. This trend is consistent across sectors and is reflected in public bodies own required annual reporting. These results demonstrate the vital importance of an independent, trusted body to receive disclosures. Employees across the public sector see our office as a safe, reliable place to bring serious concerns, and they trust that those concerns will be treated with confidentiality, fairness and professionalism.

Our investigative expertise, our experience in operationalizing PIDA across diverse sectors and the trust we’ve earned uniquely position us to provide this committee with informed, practical insights into what’s working, where challenges exist and how PIDA can continue to evolve to better serve the public sector and the people of British Columbia. We’ve thought carefully about how we can best assist your review and help this committee ensure that PIDA remains strong, trusted and adaptive as the public sector continues to evolve.

We’ll be providing the committee with four key documents. One is the results of a public sector employee survey that we conducted, are just wrapping up just now, engaging employee awareness of PIDA, their trust and confidence in the protections offered and their likelihood to come forward.

Secondly, information from chief executives that we’ve garnered, detailing how organizations have informed their employees about PIDA, including what types of training were offered, how frequently and whether participation was mandatory.

Third, an operational review summarizing our experiences managing disclosures and investigations over the past five years, including case summaries, trends identified and data on disclosure types and employee demographics.

Fourth, and based on our experience under the act, are recommended amendments to PIDA, consisting of focused suggestions to align PIDA more closely with related legislation, improve clarity and enhance its effectiveness. We’re offering these resources not as abstract observations, but really as grounded practical insights drawn from the day-to-day realities of operating under the act over the past five years.

As you conduct your review, you will likely examine whistleblower frameworks across Canada. It can be instructive to learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions, but some caution is important because laws are not identical. While most jurisdictions have similar core definitions of wrongdoing and some form of independent oversight, significant differences exist.

I’ll give you some examples. In Ontario, the integrity commissioner mainly oversees internal investigations, but does not typically conduct them directly. In Manitoba, any member of the public, not just employees and former employees, can make disclosures. And in Quebec, internal reporting options were recently eliminated after the experience of internal disclosures being mishandled in that province. All disclosures now must go directly to the Ombudsman.

And specifically regarding reprisals, there are differences. About half of Canadian jurisdictions, including B.C., have an independent oversight office, such as ours, investigate reprisal allegations and make recommendations. In the other half, they refer reprisal cases to tribunals for adjudication, introducing an adversarial, often public hearing process that can result in an order, but at the same time can discourage whistleblowing.

[10:30 a.m.]

I want to briefly mention a recent legal development arising in Alberta, the 2024 Campbell decision, which has had a significant impact on whistleblower protections there. In that case, the court determined that investigations under Alberta’s PIDA must more resemble adversarial tribunal hearings, requiring full disclosure of evidence and identity of witnesses to respondents for cross-examination.

While the courts decision

of the 2024 Campbell decision, which has had a significant impact on whistleblower protections there. In that case, the court determined that investigations under Alberta’s PIDA must more resemble adversarial tribunal hearings, requiring full disclosure of evidence and identity of witnesses to respondents for cross-examination.

While the court’s decision remains under appeal, we’ve heard that it already has had a chilling effect. Disclosers are increasingly reluctant to come forward, fearing that their identities and information may not be protected. We’re also seeing this decision referenced during our investigations in support of parties trying to obtain unfettered access to evidence or to learn the identity of witnesses.

B.C.’s approach, maintaining independent investigations that are fair to everyone involved without turning them into adversarial proceedings, has helped ensure that employees can report wrongdoing safely and confidently. We’re also providing a high level of transparency and fairness to respondents and acknowledgement of the stress an investigation can cause.

Protecting confidentiality is not only fundamental to protecting individuals, it’s fundamental to ensuring the entire framework remains effective. B.C.’s model, focused on independent, confidential investigation without adversarial hearings, has been a major strength. We’ve avoided the chilling effects seen elsewhere where disclosers fear that confidentiality will not be maintained.

While B.C.’s approach has been effective overall, it’s important to recognize that individual experiences can still vary. Even within a strong framework, some disclosers may feel frustrated or dissatisfied. It’s likely that you will hear some of these concerns during your review.

Whistleblowing is emotionally draining. Disclosers often invest a great deal of personal courage in coming forward. When investigations do not validate all the concerns a whistleblower has, or when confidentiality requirements limit the amount of information that they are entitled to receive, dissatisfaction is understandable. Common concerns you may hear include not receiving full information about the investigation process, feeling excluded from investigative steps, or being unhappy with final outcomes.

It’s important to emphasize that these frustrations, while valid from a personal standpoint, are not necessarily indicative that the system has failed. PIDA requires that we investigate allegations impartially, weighing the evidence carefully and confidentially. Investigations are not designed to assume wrongdoing is proven simply through the making of an allegation. At the same time, we strive to make the process as transparent, accessible and respectful as possible, offering disclosers opportunity to clarify allegations, provide evidence and bring a support person, if desired, when they are meeting with us.

You may also hear concerns from respondents, individuals who are investigated, about the stress of being the subject of an investigation. We appreciate that stress and mitigate it wherever possible by informing respondents directly about allegations, by maintaining confidentiality to limit reputational harm, by offering multiple opportunities to respond to allegations and allowing respondents to have legal counsel or support persons present.

In short, the process is designed to be serious but fair, balancing the interests and dignity of all parties. That’s why ongoing oversight, such as the work of this committee, is so important to ensuring that the framework remains strong, trusted and effective.

Finally, to slide 11.

In closing, I want to again thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today and for undertaking such a thorough review of this legislation. Over the past five years, our office has lived and breathed the realities of implementing and operationalizing PIDA. We have supported hundreds of employees, helped public sectors build effective internal systems and strengthened the culture of integrity across B.C.’s broader public sector.

We know firsthand what works, where challenges remain and how important it is that PIDA continues to evolve thoughtfully. We’re very aware that PIDA is a new law, and we are new at administering it. And we look forward to hearing, from this committee during your review, your ideas for changes. We commit to giving your questions over the next year prompt, frank and expert replies to that, and are available at any time to assist you.

Whistleblower protection is not about creating unnecessary scrutiny or conflict; it’s about ensuring that serious concerns can be raised safely so that public services can continually improve and maintain public trust. We remain deeply committed to supporting this committee, the Legislature and British Columbians in strengthening and sustaining this vital work.

Thank you. And with that we’d be happy to entertain your questions.

Darlene Rotchford (Chair): Thank you for your presentation. I’ll move to questions.

Lawrence Mok: Thanks for your presentation.

[10:35 a.m.]

I have three questions. The first one has to do with finance. Since the Ombudsman’s office operates separately from the Ministry of Attorney General, do you charge a fee when somebody comes to your office?

Jay Chalke: Do you want me to deal with that first one first?

So, no. We are completely independent from the entire executive.

from the Ministry of Attorney General. Do you charge a fee when somebody comes to your office?

Jay Chalke: Do you want me to deal with that first one first?

Lawrence Mok: Yes.

Jay Chalke: We are completely independent from the entire executive branch of government. I’m an officer of this place, of the Legislature. I’m one of nine officers of the Legislature, and we are services free to the public.

Of course, it’s not free to the taxpayers. We receive an allocation through, I think, it’s vote 7 now, and the amount of that is set by the legislative branch, not by the Minister of Finance, through a report prepared and released by the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. So we receive a hundred percent of our funding through that method, and we don’t charge the public anything for the service we provide.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you. My second question: the seven phases. I don’t know whether I missed some information here. Do these seven phases include the military personnel like the Army, Navy and the Air Force?

Jay Chalke: Our jurisdiction is restricted to bodies established under provincial law. And that’s true under the Ombudsperson Act as well that we’ve been doing for 45 years, where we have jurisdiction over like 1,000 public bodies, and under PIDA, where we have jurisdiction over about 200 public bodies. But those are entirely public bodies that are established as a matter of provincial law.

The military would be established under federal law, under the National Defence Act, and so it’s outside our jurisdiction. Now, there is a National Defence Ombudsman to which people can turn, although my understanding is that the federal whistleblowing legislation overseen by the public sector integrity commissioner does not apply to the military.

Lawrence Mok: Thank you. And my last question is: do you have statistical data for the last three years — you know, ‘24, ’23, ’22 — with regards to disclosures that were made anonymously?

Jay Chalke: Since PIDA started, we’ve had 47 anonymous disclosures, going back to when the act first came into force in 2019, out of 382 disclosures, which would be the total volume of disclosures over that period of time. So about 12 percent of disclosures are anonymous.

Now, when people make an anonymous disclosure, it’s important to know that we still have to determine whether they are a person legally entitled to make a disclosure. Only employees of those 200 public bodies or former employees are entitled to make a disclosure. So we have to connect with that person if they’ve not provided sufficient information together with their anonymous disclosure for us to determine whether or not, notwithstanding their anonymity, we can reliably come to the opinion that they are a person legally entitled to make a disclosure. We have to then, somehow, reconnect with them.

Often there are different kinds of anonymous disclosures. Some people don’t provide us with contact information, and if we’re not able to determine that there’s someone legally entitled to make a disclosure, that’s probably an investigation we can’t investigate. But often we will get people who will have an email address, not a personally identifiable one, but with some sort of anonymous handle. We will engage with them and we have a number of techniques that we employ with them to determine whether or not we’re satisfied that they are a person entitled to make a disclosure.

So we have a whole process that we go through, but the number of people who reached out to us that way is 47.

[10:40 a.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: I just have a follow-up question on that. Based on some of the information that you provided, has your office seen a change in either non-anonymous or anonymous disclosures with the ongoing Alberta court case?

Jay Chalke: I don’t think we’ve seen an appreciable change in the trend line around that. I think really the comment about the Alberta law is probably in a different

disclosures with the ongoing Alberta court case?

Jay Chalke: No, I don’t think we’ve seen an appreciable change in the trend line around that. Really, the comment about the Alberta law is probably in a different.... I’m not sure of awareness, among public officials or public employees here, that that case law even exists. We haven’t seen, really, any change in profile that we are aware of.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you for your presentation. Always good to see you again, Jay.

So how many of my questions from the last presentation should I re-ask again?

Jay Chalke: Whatever you like.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I could see you in the back going: “Oh.”

Maybe what I’ll do.... I notice that you’re going to be offering us up one of the reports, the chief executive approach, the operational review of the work.

One of the questions I asked in the last presentation was about examining trends, across ministries and across government — not necessarily when the complaint is into ministries, but comparing, for instance, knowledge of the act within different ministries, the level, the type, the number of complaints and comparing those between ministries. Is that going to be covered in the operational review of the work?

Jay Chalke: One of the other documents that we’ll be providing you is the result of a survey that we’re just wrapping up. It has been in the field; that’s closed, and we’re just wrapping up the report. It’s a survey of ministry employees about awareness about the act and trust in the act. That’s really focused on their confidence that the act will operate in a way that works for them if they become aware of something that could constitute wrongdoing. That’ll be another report, and I hope that meets what’s underlying your question.

If not, it’s certainly possible, through the course of this committee’s work, if we have information that we’re able to provide, if it’s specific information, say specifically related to one particular public authority, such as the government of British Columbia, a health authority or a Crown corporation, probably those questions would be best directed to them. We will know what we know based on some of the work that we’ve done.

Also, we do pay a lot of attention to those public bodies’ public reporting. They have some public reporting obligations under the act. It’s relatively limited, but we can certainly share what we’re able to glean from that.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. And, I think, a little bit of a follow-up to that one. We know that across different ministries, different bodies, different sectors, there are, certainly, different turnover rates of employee retention, new employees coming in. That is a challenge in creating a consistent workplace culture that both understands their obligations and their opportunities under PIDA.

How are we responding to that — specifically, that higher turnover rate in some sectors. Also, what metrics are we using to measure culture? I see we’re going to do a public employee survey — I’m looking forward to that; but how are we measuring our success in creating culture?

Jay Chalke: That’s a wonderful question. I think that we have tried to bring an approach.... Obviously, it’s important for public bodies to comply with PIDA. Legal compliance is kind of the base, but we’ve very much tried to stress that that’s insufficient. It is very much about creating a positive, speak-up culture. There’s lots of literature about that.

I will say that leadership of those public organizations is critically important. I have been encouraged that as PIDA came into force through the various phases, we’ve seen some very good messaging from public sector leaders to their staff. I think that it’s heartening to see that, but as you say, people change over time. So culture becomes, really, the driver of confidence within an organization.

[10:45 a.m.]

If people are around the water cooler telling positive stories about having, you know, gone through an experience where they saw something wrong, they spoke up, and something was dealt with, internal to their organization, that’s a real positive reinforcement of culture. If those conversations go the other way, then it’s not likely, I would think, the next time something comes up, that someone’s going to make an internal disclosure.

So we

you know, gone through an experience where they saw something wrong, and they spoke up, and something was dealt with internal to their organization. That’s a real positive reinforcement of culture. If those conversations go the other way, then it’s not likely, I would think, that the next time something comes up, someone’s going to make an internal disclosure.

We very much believe that most public sector leaders probably would prefer that staff feel and believe that concerns will be dealt with within their organization appropriately and professionally. We have said to public sector leaders: “It’s probably in your interest to try and create that culture that values and reinforces for staff that speaking up internally is the best way to go.”

How we measure that is probably something that I should do some reflecting on before answering your question. I’m happy to come back at any point. But I do think that each organization for sure is different. The kinds of metrics that you might see in some organizations are going to be different, just because the culture itself is different in those organizations. I think I would like to see more internal disclosures made and less — I wouldn’t say less, but less proportionate — resort to us, necessarily.

One of the things that does happen in ministries itself is the work environment survey. Every two years, staff of ministries participate in a survey organized by B.C. Stats. It’s done in a very anonymous fashion. There are questions in the work environment survey that might be worth probing with the public service agency around confidence in knowing where to go, for example, when I see something is wrong in my organization. That’s one indicator of some metrics and might be worth exploring with government.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I think you were very specific that it is employees of the public service, of the specific agencies that are under the PIDA mandate that are covered. I would be remiss, though, if I didn’t ask: if someone was the employee of a contractor working on a public contract, but they had a private sector employer, would they be covered under PIDA?

Jay Chalke: That’s a great question and something that I will foreshadow. You may see us have a comment on, when we get time to making suggestions around amendments….

In defence of the current legislation, as the Deputy Attorney General said, the theory behind whistleblowing legislation for employees is it provides a pathway that’s legal for them to breach what would otherwise be a breach of their employment obligations, because they have common-law duties and sometimes statutory duties of confidentiality and loyalty. So this allows them to disclose, notwithstanding…. There’s a particular pathway that they can disclose, notwithstanding those other legal obligations.

That applies to employees, and it applies to former employees, because in the public sector context, those confidentiality obligations survive, even for people who no longer work in the public sector.

However, there are others, such as contractors, who may have contractual obligations of confidentiality, or volunteers who work in an organization who, as part of their volunteer agreement, have to agree to confidentiality. So there are other people who have legal obligations to be confidential who are not covered under PIDA at current.

There are other jurisdictions where there is a broader scope of people who have the legal right to make a disclosure. As I mentioned, Manitoba goes completely to the “anybody can.” But I would just caution to say the “anybody can make a disclosure” really gets away from the kind of policy basis of PIDA, which is to create this exception for people who are under some form of legal obligation to keep information secret. So it becomes a sort of a different kind of statute at that point.

Darlene Rotchford: I just want to ask a follow-up. Does this apply to Crown corporation employees that may also be in that situation?

Jay Chalke: Yes, it does.

Darlene Rotchford: Currently, it does?

Jay Chalke: Yes, Crown corporations were in phase 3. There are 27 Crown corporations, I believe, in that range. The biggest and most famous two would be B.C. Hydro and ICBC, but all the other Crown corporations, as well, are covered.

[10:50 a.m.]

The Chair: Yeah, Rosalyn, go ahead.

Rosalyn Bird: I have a follow up also.

Page 10. You guys are talking about the phases. I’m assuming that originally there were only the two to seven phases?

The Chair: Yeah, Roslyn, go ahead.

Rosalyn Bird: I have a follow-up also.

Page 10, and you guys are talking about the phases, so I’m assuming that originally there were only the two to seven phases?

Jay Chalke: Two to seven are the phases that the Attorney General announced in July of 2021. As far as we know, that’s the extent of coverage under the act.

I also may have something to say about that in our amendment suggestions, but at current, there are no more announced expansions. There is no more announced expansion coming.

Rosalyn Bird: Okay, so that takes me to my next question, actually, and it may be a dual question from yourself and to the clerk. I’m not sure which.

Has there been consideration for other and/or all elected officials that may not currently fall under this act that do in fact spend public funds and/or taxpayers’ dollars that have not currently been phased in?

Jay Chalke: No, I would say, particularly with respect to legislators.

I will say that I did publicly call for PIDA, together with my colleagues the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Merit Commissioner…. In the wake of the spending scandal here at the Legislature, I did call publicly for the act to apply to what I would describe as the administrative function, the non-deliberative function of the Legislature.

At the time, the Government House Leader indicated that the change would happen. It hasn’t happened yet. The Legislature has instituted a number of workplace policies, and I’m sure the Clerk would be happy to speak to those, to mitigate the risks that had existed in the past.

My view is that independent oversight is still always a good idea. But that would not, and our proposal did not try to, apply PIDA to legislators themselves.

Rosalyn Bird: So, a better example: municipalities. So mayors, councillors, they spend public funds. They collect public funds. Well, not directly, but indirectly. My understanding is they are not currently covered under the act.

If that’s something that we wanted to consider as a committee, does that need to go through the Ombudsman’s recommendations, or is that something that can be added to our committee oversight?

Jay Chalke: We will be returning, as I mentioned, and one of the documents we’re going to be returning with is a set of amendments that we would urge the committee to adopt and include in its report. I’m also on the public record as having said that I generally take the view that the coverage of PIDA should be the same as coverage under the Ombudsperson Act, and we do have coverage over local governments, regional districts, water works districts, local improvement districts, hundreds of them under the Ombudsperson Act.

I would generally take the position that same coverage should apply under PIDA, because, as you say, they’re spending public dollars. Independent oversight, if an employee thinks that something is wrong, ensuring that that can apply as well.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Your investigations that you just mentioned are not adversarial proceedings. They are not criminal investigations. But there must be times in which you discover evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

In those cases, can you walk me through the process of when you would turn evidence or investigation over to, like, a criminal investigative body such as the RCMP, and what happens at that point? Do you conduct parallel proceedings, or does your proceeding go on pause?

Jay Chalke: Yes, so the act expressly contemplates us referring a matter where we have reason to believe that that a criminal proceeding may have occurred. Let me read the actual words. Section 7(2) of the act says:

If a chief executive, a designated officer or, in relation to a request for advice, a disclosure or a complaint about reprisal under this Act, the Ombudsperson has reason to believe that an offence has been committed under an enactment of British Columbia or Canada, that person or a delegate may report the alleged offence to a law enforcement agency.

[10:55 a.m.]

And so that’s the legal mechanism by which we do that. And then, yes, we would put our investigation…. To the extent that there would be an overlap with the criminal investigation, we would put our

that person or a delegate may report the alleged offence to a law enforcement agency.

That’s the legal mechanism by which we do that. Then, yes, we would put our investigation, to the extent that there would be an overlap with the criminal investigation, on pause until that proceeding was complete.

If it’s possible, or if, in fact, our investigation is related but not overlapping the allegation of the criminal offence, then in theory, it could proceed. But those would be kind of…. We would be making all of those decisions on a case-by-case basis as we looked at the particular facts of both the disclosure allegation and the reason to believe that we have that an offence may have occurred.

Jennifer Blatherwick: I just have one last question. Actually, Jay, this may overlap more with your function as an ombudsman, so please let me know if that’s not directly….

I’m looking at the previous reports that the Office of the Ombudsperson has put out. Hire Power, On the Road Again — there are many.

I want to ask Jay: are you responsible for the puns in the titles of your reports?

Jay Chalke: This is serious work. We work really hard. But we like to think carefully about our titles in a way that hopefully engages the public.

Hire Power is a report of an investigation done under PIDA. On the Road Again is an investigation done under the Ombudsperson Act. But I’m happy to talk about any of them.

Jennifer Blatherwick: Thank you. I am at the end of my questions.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I had sort of asked part of this question at the beginning, just between your between you and me, because of my critic role as Citizens’ Services and freedom-of-information stuff. But it did bring up another question, actually.

Can any of you talk to your relationship between not only the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, but also the conflict-of-interest office? I would suspect a lot of the disclosures that come to your office overlap with either of those offices, or both, and the challenges that you are facing or this legislation is facing around individuals making disclosures that have significant challenges getting the information through the FOI process?

Jay Chalke: To the first part of your question, section 24(2) of the act contemplates that if someone makes a disclosure under the act, and we are of the view that the matter would more appropriately be the subject of an investigation by another officer, then we can refer it. I’ll read it.

“The Ombudsperson, after consultation with and confirmation by the relevant office” — I’ll pause just to say that ‘office’ means another office of the Legislature — “may refer the disclosure if the Ombudsperson considers that the disclosure could more appropriately be investigated, in whole or in part, by an officer of the Legislature, in accordance with the relevant Act that grants authority to the relevant officer in a procedure under that Act, including, if applicable, by the Ombudsperson under the Ombudsperson Act.”

Then, later on, that section says that if a disclosure is referred under subsection (2), the reprisal protections set out in part 5 of the act continue to apply to the discloser.

If someone sorry discloses wrongdoing to us, and we look at it, and we think that this is something that might more appropriately be investigated by the Information and Privacy Commissioner — which is who you identify as an example, but could really be any of them — then we can refer the matter.

They then conduct that investigation under their relevant act, not under PIDA. So it’s just under their own act, as if in the ordinary course, except that the person gains the PIDA reprisal protections for having come through our PIDA front door.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): I’m going to have a follow-up question to that one, then, actually, although I would like to know about any challenges that you are having or have heard about in regards to the FOI process and trying to garner information to support a concern. But we can come back to that.

Based on what you just said, that was my understanding also. So if somebody made a disclosure and you said: “Okay, this falls under the Privacy Commissioner. We’re going to - we’re going to forward it back to you. You guys have an investigation….”

[11:00 a.m.]

There is obviously an escalation table, or maybe there isn’t. I guess that’s part of the question. So if there is an escalation, you guys defer it back to, say, the privacy or the information office. They do an investigation and come up with an answer and/or a response. If the person is not happy with that response, can they then escalate it to your office? If they are able

question. So if there is an escalation, you guys defer it back to, say, the privacy or the information office. They do an investigation and come up with an answer and/or a response. If the person is not happy with that response, can they then escalate it to your office? And if they are able to do that, is that investigation used as part of your investigation, or does it start from the beginning, and you guys do a completely new investigation in order that there isn’t any sort of...? That they think that they are actually being heard without any sort of reprisals or you know.... You know what I’m getting at.

Jay Chalke: I’m not 100 percent sure that I do know what you’re getting at, but let me try this.

When we refer a matter…. We’ll keep using the Information and Privacy Commissioner — I’m sure he’s wondering why we’re talking about him — as an example. We could use any of them, but let’s say we use him. If we refer a matter to his office, he’s conducting that investigation under his relevant statute, not under PIDA.

However, if in fact, as a result…. I think this is what you were sort of asking. If in fact, as a result of having come to us with that allegation of wrongdoing that we thought more properly could be dealt with under the FOI Act, if as a result there’s an allegation of reprisal, that comes to us and we would conduct any relevant reprisal investigation.

What we would not do is be conducting, if I can put it this way, an appellate investigation under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. He’s the sole determinant of that. If there are review or appeal processes that are available to people under that act, that’s what they would use. So our role would purely be with respect to any suggestions that there was a reprisal as a result of coming to us with that case in the first place and us having referred it over to the Privacy Commissioner.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Okay. So if I understand correctly, and I just want to make sure that I do, if any public service employee makes a disclosure and if it falls under another office…. It doesn’t matter which one. No, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner is not in trouble. It was just an example. But if somebody thinks that something was done that falls under that act, they do an investigation. I just want to confirm. If the person that made that disclosure originally was not satisfied with that investigation, there is no mechanism for them to forward it to your office.

Jay Chalke: Not under PIDA, right? There may well be mechanisms under those statutes for some sort of appeal or review process. I hope I’ve answered your question, but I think, as best as I can understand, that would be the answer.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Last question, which is grossly uncomfortable and I apologize in advance for it, but I literally got asked last week. What happens if somebody has a complaint against the Ombudsman’s office?

Jay Chalke: The act applies to officers, to offices. There are nine offices. I’m one of them. The act contemplates that if there is an allegation of wrongdoing, people can make an internal disclosure through our process as well. But they can also make an external disclosure. That external disclosure is to the Auditor General.

So the act specifically contemplates that someone may make an allegation of wrongdoing, and that would go to the Auditor General. All the other provisions of the act then apply to the Auditor General when carrying out the act. So they are actually carrying out what we do when people make external disclosures about any of the other public bodies. They carry it out specifically if there’s one about us.

Rosalyn Bird (Deputy Chair): Okay, thank you. Meant no offence by that question.

Darlene Rotchford (Chair): I appreciate it because actually I didn’t know the answer either, so it was good.

Any further questions from the committee? Great.

Thank you guys very much for your presentation.

We’ll take a five-minute recess and return.

The committee recessed from 11:04 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.

The committee recessed from 11:04 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Darlene Rotchford (Chair): I’d like to call the committee back to order. I’ll ask for a motion to move in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 11:15 a.m. to 11:39 a.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Darlene Rotchford (Chair): The committee is now back in public session.

I would like to thank everyone for their engagement in today’s meeting. On behalf of the committee, I would also like to take the opportunity to note that we’ve been holding a public consultation to inform our work. More information on that will be available in the coming weeks.

That concludes our business for today. Is there any other business?

I’ll seek a motion to adjourn. Seconded.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:40 a.m.