The committee met at 8:02 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Welcome, everyone. This is the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

I would like to acknowledge that we're gathered here on the unceded, traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, also known as the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

We are proceeding through with the annual review of the statutory officers of British Columbia. Today we will be hearing from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and registrar of lobbyists.

With that, I will turn it over to the commissioner, Michael McEvoy.

Review of Statutory Officers

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION
AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
AND REGISTRAR OF LOBBYISTS

M. McEvoy: Good morning, and thank you, Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the committee.

I, too, would like to acknowledge and respect that we are meeting today on the traditional territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

I should also add this morning that the thoughts of our office are with the many British Columbians who have been profoundly affected by the extraordinary events of the last number of days — to members, particularly, whose constituents are especially affected by those events.

The budget and service plan before you this morning comes as both the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the office of the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia. To assist me in this task this morning are Deputy Commissioners oline Twiss and Jeannette Van Den Bulk, along with Dave Van Swieten, who is the executive director of shared services for the four officers of the Legislature headquartered at 947 Fort Street.

This morning I will briefly review recent actions of our office and then focus on three specific requests, explaining why they are important to our work to providing services for British Columbians.

[8:05 a.m.]

Just before doing this, I want to first follow up on comments from our June appearance concerning our COVID office plans. We are now in phase 3 of our COVID-19 safety and transition plan that allows our team the choice of working at 947 Fort Street, with the proviso that only 50 percent of staff can be in the office at any one time. Those working in the office must be fully vaccinated, and that has actually been the case since October 14.

This past summer our leadership team identified January 31, 2022, as the earliest date for a staff-wide return to the office. On November 10, last week, we let staff know that we expect each of them to be fully vaccinated by January 31, subject to proper medical exemption or accommodation under the human rights code.

A failure to vaccinate, consistent with provincial government protocols, will result in an employee being placed on leave without pay for three months, followed by termination. Should infection rates continue to decline over the winter, I would expect a greater proportion of employees will return to the worksite early in the new year.

My senior leadership team is also working on a plan which would see a greater proportion of our employees working from home in the future. I will continue to update the committee as matters progress.

I want to turn now to the recent work and accomplishments of the OIPC since my last appearance in June. The mix of files that we have processed in the past year has undoubtedly been impacted by COVID. The number of general information queries we have answered has jumped, along with requests by public bodies and organizations seeking assistance from us in drafting privacy impact assessments.

This shouldn't be especially surprising, since more British Columbians during the pandemic have had to rely on new online tools to conduct their affairs. Individuals, public bodies and organizations alike have worked to understand how new public health measures affect them.

My office has also experienced an increase in case files involving complaints, requests for reviews and privacy breaches, which are on track this fiscal year to reach a five-year high. That increase may be due in part to public bodies and organizations catching up after the first year of the pandemic or the result of an increased desire by citizens, exercising their access to information and privacy rights, to hold public bodies to account.

It might be useful to pause at this point, Chair and committee members, to give you and the members of the committee some sense of who the applicants or complainants are that come to our office. Recent public commentary might suggest that the files my office has received emanate from a small number of media members or opposition political parties. This is not the case.

Of the almost 1,000 files logged to date in this fiscal year, only 6 percent are media, and 1 percent come from political parties. Fully 89 percent of complaints and requests for reviews are initiated by individuals — your constituents.

Perhaps the most concerning and operationally challenging development during the last fiscal year was the sharp rise in files going to a formal adjudication process. It now appears that this rise in adjudication inquiries was not a statistical aberration. Last year's numbers are set to repeat again this year. I'll have more to say about this issue and the need to address it in a few minutes, because it has significant implications for my mandate and the public.

The COVID-19 pandemic has touched upon issues relating to the protection of people's personal information. Issues like proof of vaccination cards have put matters of privacy protection squarely on society's agenda. As you can imagine, the August announcement of a vaccine card sparked much public conversation and concern, leading to an increase in calls from the public to our office.

In addition to consultations with B.C.'s public health officer about the logistics of the card, my office published guidance explaining how the card and the public health orders worked together with B.C.'s public and private sector privacy laws.

These issues, of course, have national and international dimensions. B.C.'s proof of vaccination, for example, will have to operate for travel outside of B.C. and Canada. For this reason, we have been deeply engaged with regulatory colleagues nationally and internationally, discussing current common regulatory challenges.

The relationships British Columbia has built with our counterparts, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, have proven especially important. I would like to restate our appreciation to the committee's funding of my office's leadership role as the Secretariat to the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities. Supported by fellow APPA members, we are seeking to continue that position for an additional three years, and we ask the committee for continued funding over this same period.

[8:10 a.m.]

In less than two weeks, my office will virtually host the 56th APPA Forum, and 19 member organizations and approximately 100 attendees will participate in three days of enforcement discussions, jurisdictional updates and collaboration on some of the key privacy issues we face today, including those associated with virtual health care, enabling cross-border data flows and guidance on the ethical development and use of AI. Meanwhile, my office continues with its responsibilities to report, investigate and comment on privacy and access-to-information matters.

After my committee appearance in June, we released a compliance report revealing that few private liquor and cannabis retailers maintain adequate privacy management programs or document privacy policies, contrary to their obligations under the Personal Information Protection Act. The report contained 18 recommendations for the sector.

These included establishing and maintaining privacy management programs as well as terminating the use of biometric tools, like facial recognition technology, to collect personal information. Reports like these are meant to ensure legal compliance. They also serve to broadly educate organizations about their statutory responsibilities, which will ultimately build more trust with their customers.

This compliance report and the guidance that followed garnered considerable interest in B.C. and beyond. I participated in a podcast hosted by the U.K.-based Privacy Laws and Business in September to discuss how our PIPA legislation applies to Canada's retailers.

In August, I announced an investigation into the Liberal Party of Canada's use of facial recognition technology to confirm the identity of individuals participating in virtual nomination meetings in British Columbia in the lead-up to the October federal election. This investigation is ongoing. In the meantime, I have encouraged the use of alternative verification methods that do not make use of facial recognition technology.

Finally, in response to the introduction of Bill 22, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021, I published a statement and letter setting out the privacy and access implications of this legislation to British Columbians. Certain provisions of the bill — specifically, proposed requirements for privacy management programs, privacy impact assessments and mandatory breach reporting — would, if approved, have a direct impact on the staffing and resources of my office. However, given the bill is before the House, it would be premature for me to set out in detail what these impacts could be.

There are, however, immediate and urgent resourcing issues facing the office, which I'm now asking the committee to address through its recommendations to government.

Chair and members of the committee, the biggest proportion of requests for reviews and complaints we deal with, around 87 percent, are resolved in a relatively timely manner through investigation and mediation. However, when a case cannot be resolved by these means, the matter must be determined by a formal adjudicative process.

Most often these are what I would describe as the hard cases. They are more contentious and complex. The law's application may not be clear, or the legal matters at issue may be novel. Frequently, some or all of these factors are combined, with records at issue often numbering in the hundreds, which must be individually assessed.

An adjudicative inquiry is governed by the rules of natural justice and administrative fairness. It means parties are given the opportunity to provide submissions to make their case and a chance to reply to the opposing parties. Matters are often punctuated by preliminary objections and the need to assess evidence in camera. This is necessarily an exacting process that can be challenging and time-consuming, as one would expect from a quasi-judicial proceeding.

It is also fundamental to the democratic fabric of British Columbia and critically meaningful for citizens. For the Indigenous woman seeking records about her grandmother's incarceration in a juvenile reformatory in the 1940s to help validate her claim for status under the Indian Act. For homeowners asking their local district government for documents that could help them understand how geotechnical issues made their properties uninhabitable. For the woman seeking access to an investigation report concerning allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment that impacted her life. These orders and others, rendered by our adjudicators, are final, save and except where a party seeks a review by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

As I explained at the outset, these adjudicative inquiries have increased dramatically, and demand shows no signs of retreating. Prior to the 2019-2020 fiscal year, we could expect about 100 files proceeding to adjudication annually. It was a challenge, but we managed to keep pace with our team of five adjudicators, supplemented by contractors using reallocated resources. The adjudicators are supported by one full-time and one part-time registrar.

[8:15 a.m.]

In 2019-2020, the number of adjudication files jumped to 120, a 20 percent increase. I didn't come to you for assistance last year because it wasn't clear to me whether this was an aberration that could be handled internally by temporarily reallocating resources. However, this last fiscal year saw that number go even higher, to 155. We are on track again this year to reach 150 files by the conclusion of this fiscal year.

Adjudicative processes are driven from external forces over which we have no control. I cannot tell you with certainty the reasons for the recent rise. Some of it may be a greater desire for citizen accountability of public bodies or a greater distrust of them. Some may be the result of public bodies themselves being more resistant to resolving matters at the investigation stage.

Whatever the case, I can say with certainty that our ability to keep pace with our legislative obligations has been surpassed. We have now reached a backlog of 216 files, or, to put it differently, parties may have to wait up to 18 months from the time a case goes to adjudication until a decision is rendered — an unacceptable period.

Without additional support, the backlog will worsen. What we ask is that you recommend a provision of resources by way of added adjudicator FTEs that will allow us to keep up with the increased number of inquiries received annually, as well as shorter-term help to reduce the existing backlog. Without this assistance, we project that over the next five years, the backlog will increase to approximately 485 inquiries, which would extend the wait time at adjudication to 42 months. You can see this projection found at page 13 of the budget submission document. To state the obvious, this is unacceptable.

We have looked at and will continue to examine ways to streamline our adjudicative processes and reallocate resources where possible. However, it is clear to me that we now face a structural issue driven by increased demand, with no signs of resolution short of allocating more resources to the adjudication team.

Therefore, I'm asking the committee to provide me with resources needed to add seven FTEs to the adjudication division to address the sustained increase in demand. The FTEs would consist of five permanent adjudicator positions and two additional FTEs that would be time bound for a three-year period, tasked with directly addressing the backlog to reduce wait times.

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

We continue the work of educating lobbyists and the public about the act and the registry. Since our June appearance, we have updated three guidance documents and eight user guides. We continue to publish Influencing B.C., our online newsletter featuring updates on the recent legislative amendments and a who's-lobbying-who monthly summary of active or reactivated registration returns. This public education work will ramp up over the coming year as the new positions provided in this year's budget are fully integrated.

ORL staff continue to manage the lobbyist registry to promote compliance and make changes to ensure that steps for registration are easy to follow. As an example, we recently built an all-MLA checkbox into the registry so that lobbyists don't need to enter the names of each of you separately when their lobbying activities are directed at all of you as MLAs collectively.

In September, my office hosted virtually the Lobbyist Registrar and Commissioner's Network conference. The LRCN conferences provide a valuable opportunity to share jurisdictional developments among members on legislative reforms and lobbying issues. In our meeting this fall, we focused on lobbying issues related to elections and social media. We also met with representatives of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to discuss their work in strengthening the principles of transparency and integrity in lobbying.

I'll spend my final few minutes here this morning summarizing the remaining two elements of our 2022-2023 budget request, the costs associated with inflation and the update of our Case Tracker System.

[8:20 a.m.]

Most of my budget for the two offices consists of salaries and benefits. We have a staff complement of 43 positions. For the forthcoming fiscal year, my office is faced with an adjustment of $202,000 in inflationary costs, which includes $185,000 for salary adjustments and increments, an increase in our shared-services cost of $7,000 and an increase in our information system costs of $10,000.

I have reviewed our budget in detail and have determined that we have exhausted our financial fiscal flexibility. Therefore, I am unable to absorb these cost pressures without reducing staff resources and disrupting services to British Columbians.

I am also including $363,000 in operating costs and $275,000 in capital costs for my office's share of replacing the Case Tracker System. As you know, the funds for the first stage to update our almost 30-year-old system were approved in February, and I, along with my fellow officers at 947 Fort Street, appreciate the committee's support for the project. To recap, I have three requests: adjudicator positions to address wait time for citizens, my office's share of the costs to replace the Case Tracker System, and an adjustment to cover inflationary costs.

The combined operating budget request to cover these and ongoing cost pressures is, therefore, an increase of $1.507 million, for a total operating budget of $9.096 million and a capital budget of $360,000 for the 2022-2023 fiscal year. This represents an increase of 12.44 percent to secure a complement of adjudicators to address wait times for inquiries, 4.78 percent for the case-tracker replacement, and 2.66 percent for inflationary cost pressures — an overall budget increase of 19.86 percent compared to the current fiscal year.

Before I invite your questions, I want to finish this presentation by acknowledging the incredible work being done by everyone at the OIPC and ORL. The work of our team has supported the continuity of operations under the unique pressures brought on by the pandemic. I can say, also, with regret, that my staff are encountering a greater number of frustrated individuals in the day-to-day course of their work. Our team has met these circumstances in a very professional manner, often de-escalating difficult situations.

Whether it's COVID's effect or a general trend in society, there is no excuse for conduct that crosses the line from frustration to abuse. We have in place strict protocols which allow our staff to disengage those who do cross that line in a manner that is fair and clear about expectations, and we provide full support and assistance to our office colleagues where that is called for. I cannot say enough about the staff at the OIPC and ORL who serve British Columbians. Their service is exemplary, and it's my privilege to work with each of them.

With that, Chair, I thank you and the committee for the time this morning. My team and I would now be very happy to take your questions.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Michael.

I'll open it up to the committee for questions.

P. Alexis: Thank you so much for your thorough and very succinct report. A couple of questions.

You talked about trends. Did you notice other provinces and other areas, perhaps other countries, also experiencing the same kinds of trends with respect to numbers of cases, and the same kind of frustration, the same kind of desire to get in front of policy changes, etc.? That's the first question. Do you want me to give you both?

M. McEvoy: Why don't I just start there. On the last part of your question about the interaction between other offices in Canada and internationally with respect to citizen queries, yes, I have heard similar stories from colleagues. In fact, it's an issue we talk about collectively together, both on a national level and internationally, talking about strategies as to how we deal with often very difficult issues. There is much to share between offices in that regard, and that's one of the advantages of having those kinds of relationships — if that answers that question.

P. Alexis: The second part is about the adjudication. You said that the harder cases are growing in number, perhaps because things are too complex for the average person to figure out. I'm thinking, just for a second, coming from a local government background, that development and the development process are very complicated.

[8:25 a.m.]

Sometimes, they just can't figure out what to do and how to do it — the process and all of that. Consequently, they'll hire someone to do that process. It puts them further out of the loop. They really have no understanding. They're putting their faith and trust in the person that they've hired to navigate the system. Is that the kind of thing that you are seeing: the frustration because they don't get it, because things have become more complicated, just generally, with respect to process, all three levels of government and complications?

M. McEvoy: Let me start my answer to that question by just referring back to my comments that the vast majority of cases that we see come before our office are resolved by the staff that work for the deputy commissioners and are mediated and investigated.

It's usually cases where the law is clear, where provisions of the act are well established, if I can describe it that way. It makes it easier to give guidance to individuals — to say: "Look, if this case were to go to adjudication, this is clearly the way it would be decided." They would say to a public body, "Look, these records are going to go out. You probably want to disclose them and save everybody time," or to an applicant, "Look, this is clearly going to be protected, because it's solicitor-client privilege," or whatever the case might be. So hundreds, thousands, of cases are dealt with in that way.

In other cases, it's not clear what the application of the law might be, or the records themselves might be borderline in terms of whether a redaction might apply or not. Depending on the importance of that matter to both the public body and the individual, that might dictate whether it's something that, for either party, might need to be adjudicated on a formal basis.

We are finding that many of those requests now have many more records involved in them, which also makes the matter somewhat more time-consuming for adjudicators, because it's not one of these things where you can, sort of pro forma, just say that one page is good and that the rest is good. You have to actually go through each and every redaction to make sure that, for example, people's personal information is protected properly, because an error in that way could have, obviously, significant consequences. So it does take time. I think that to that extent the complexity has increased.

M. Starchuk: Michael, thank you for your report. When I start to read these reports, I try to put on my finance cap and start going through it, and I found, myself, with this report, that that cap fell off partway through, because I was so intrigued by the stuff that was inside of there. You make a great case with regard to…. In general terms, when somebody asks for more money, we want to see what the output would be. Your report clearly demonstrates that more bodies in a seat create more conclusions to those files.

On page three of your cover memo, it makes reference to that $185,000, and it makes reference to it as inflationary increases. My question to you: are they actual inflationary increases, or are they just miscalculations of steps, raises and other things like that? That's how it comes across.

M. McEvoy: The answer to the question on the inflationary costs is that it does mainly result from wage issues. As the settlements that happen at a provincial level flow downwards to officers and other excluded employees, that's in large measure what we're talking about there.

M. Starchuk: Okay. Based on that, Michael, just in my world, when I take a look at wage increases — step increments when somebody goes from a level 3 to a level 4 or whatever the classifications are — I don't personally see that as inflation. Those are contract issues that are there. So then it becomes the question: when you add on the seven other bodies, will those numbers be reflected in the upcoming year — those steps or wage increases?

[8:30 a.m.]

M. McEvoy: I'm going to ask for some assistance from Dave Van Swieten on this point. My understanding is that the bulk of this is related to those percentage increases in wages passed on to employees — as opposed to, for example, moving from one band to the other or moving from one level to another. Is that…?

D. Van Swieten: Yeah.

M. Starchuk: Okay. Just for my…. Would that not just be considered wage increases, not inflationary increases?

M. McEvoy: That's a good question. I think that's the way, historically, we have categorized these matters before the committee, as far back as I can remember making these presentations. That's the way, I think, it has been characterized by our offices — and, I think, other offices — for the purposes of the committee's deliberations.

M. Starchuk: Okay. Well then, I will say that it is the detail of your report that brought it forward for me. Thank you.

G. Lore: I don't have a question so much as to thank you for some of those examples of the sorts of cases that go to the formal adjudicated process. It's not always clear what these issues might be to folks, including myself, who have never interacted with or sought the support of your office. The examples you gave really outline the ways in which the work you do impacts people's lives and their access to services and touches on different parts of their lives.

With that in mind, the wait time and the increase in the number of cases that you're seeing seem significant and relevant to 216, at a minimum, people's lives. So I just wanted to thank you for some of those examples in illustrating, particularly, that more challenging part of the work that flows through your office.

M. McEvoy: I appreciate the comment. Thank you. I have to say my own inclinations, at a fiscal level, are — I use it in a non-political sense — quite conservative. So I've found myself…. I obviously would not be here asking for that money if I did not think it was absolutely necessary to ensure that British Columbians' demands and needs are met by our budget.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Commissioner, for a really good report. I guess the question I have for you in terms of the increased costs…. You alluded to that, or you said that there was going to be something additional with Bill 22 that was in front of the House right now. Obviously, you know the bill. You've written to government about that.

What types of pressures would that bring to your office if enacted or, maybe more likely, when it's enacted?

M. McEvoy: Sure. I will give you some idea of what that would be.

One of the provisions in the bill requires public bodies to report breaches to our office. We do now receive, on a voluntary basis, some breach reporting. But we do know, based on experiences in other parts of the country — Alberta, Canada federally — where mandatory breach notification provisions have come into effect, that has placed extra demand on offices like ours. Whether you're a school board, a provincial government ministry, a health authority, you will have to come to us to report that breach, and then there may be circumstances where those breaches will have to be reported to individuals. All of that will place greater demand on our staff.

Another example would be the provision that would provide for privacy management programs amongst all public bodies. This is a very positive measure. It requires all public bodies to put not just their minds, but…. They're legally obligated to put in place privacy management programs. These would include things like ensuring that you understand exactly what personal information British Columbians do hold, so that if there is a breach, we'll know what's at risk, and the measures that you're putting in place to protect that information.

All public bodies will have to do that. As a result, we anticipate that many public bodies will be coming to our office to seek assistance in putting together those plans to make sure that they're done properly. Of course, we have experts on the teams in our office that can give that advice and guidance.

[8:35 a.m.]

Those are the kinds of examples where I expect there will be a greater demand on the resources of our office.

On the issue of privacy breaches, that will be an ongoing issue. Obviously, we hope that they don't happen, but we know that they do. There's always a risk. We're there to assist public bodies in making sure that people's information is properly protected. Those are two examples of where we would see added demand on our office.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Just to flip this around, is there more that could be done to lighten the workload? I don't know if there is, but are there suggestions or recommendations? Maybe that's not the place, but I'm just saying…. Is there pressure because of the way the act is currently written?

I know you and I have spoken about the updates, because we were kind of ahead of our time. Then we've not been amending and updating and stuff like that.

I'm just wondering: are there other things that would make the office function more smoothly, or would there be changes required on a broader scale?

M. McEvoy: Our office is always looking at ways to streamline our processes. That is a continuing matter and a priority, particularly for the deputy commissioners who are here with me this morning, looking at ways to streamline processes, make them more efficient. We've gone through several iterations of lean processing.

We're always looking, as well, to our colleagues, both across the country and internationally, to look at ways that they do their operations, where they have gained some efficiencies, so that we can learn from those, so it remains an ongoing matter.

I should just mention, on the privacy breach issue, that it's not every privacy breach that would have to come to our office in those circumstances. There is a threshold. For example, for those still using faxes, the odd fax errantly going somewhere wouldn't necessarily have to be reported if it were just a matter of somebody's name or email. But obviously, things that could pose a significant risk of harm to individuals are the kinds of things that would come to our office.

Early on in a mandatory breach process, there will be a lot of questions on the part of public bodies. What is reportable and what isn't? I would expect that what we will see is public bodies erring on the side of reporting, which I think is appropriate, to make sure that that threshold is understood.

To your original question, we are constantly looking at ways to make our processes more efficient, and not just internally, but from the public's point of view as well — anything from digitizing our records…. The Case Tracker System, which you've heard much about, for the offices, is going to be a huge assistance that will allow the electronic filling-in of records and processing that won't involve repeated questions to the public about information that we need from them. Those are the kinds of steps that we're taking and continue to take.

M. Dykeman: I was wondering if you could remind me…. I think you said it, and I might have missed it. On page 2, you talk about an unacceptable delay of 42 months or 3.5 years at the current estimated backlog of 45 with the numbers that you're seeing today.

At this point, if you weren't seeing these increases to 150, what is the current sort of service standard turnaround? What's your current backlog, if you aren't seeing this increase?

M. McEvoy: We are at about 200 cases, now, in the backlog, which takes approximately…. If you were to ask for an adjudication, it would take approximately 18 months to get a result in the case, at this point.

M. Dykeman: Okay, and that will just continue?

M. McEvoy: We will be adding to that number of cases backlogged every year, simply because — let's put it this way — the adjudicators can't swim fast enough with the volume of water coming in.

L. Doerkson: Thanks for a great report, and thanks for demonstrating the need. Obviously, that helps — for me, anyhow — to clear up the request for extra funds.

[8:40 a.m.]

What I'm interested in is: are you able to assign, or do you have some sort of a formal calculation for how you assign time, etc., to a particular case? How do you arrive at asking for seven full-time employees, as compared to maybe asking for eight or nine?

M. McEvoy: That's a good question. The way we come to that figure is we know how many orders an adjudicator would produce in a year on average. Calculating that times the number of adjudicators will roughly give us the number of orders that we can produce in a given year. If that number can exceed the number of cases coming in the door, we're going to obviously knock the backlog down. Our view is that with the additional….

Five adjudicators allows us to keep pace, but obviously, with the backlog, that is not good enough. We need to knock the backlog down. That is why we've asked for an additional two adjudicators on top, but for only a three-year period, which will allow us to knock the backlog down.

At that point, I think, given where we are with current trends, that hopefully should be sufficient to allow us to keep pace and put the backlog at a point where I would describe the turnaround time as not ideal but acceptable. It would be a backlog of approximately somewhere between 80 and 100 cases, which is where we were about five or six years ago.

M. Starchuk: Michael, with regards to those three positions that would be on a temporary basis, do you foresee the ability for maybe retirements, or whatever the case may be, for them to move from being a temporary contract worker to becoming a full-time worker?

M. McEvoy: Those employees would be hired at full-time. The reality of the adjudication work is there is some degree of turnover in those positions, so I think there's a high likelihood that those three people or two people would be absorbed into the ongoing component of the adjudication department, given what I know to be the case with historical trends in adjudication.

I should note that I personally started as an adjudicator with the office back several years ago, so I can attest with some conviction about the challenges. It's very interesting work. It's very challenging. It's very isolating work in some ways, because you're sitting there with all the evidence and having to come to decisions that impact people's lives, so it's quite significant. People often will move to other positions, either, for example, within the Attorney General Ministry or other administrative tribunals, so I would expect that those people would be absorbed into the regular component of our adjudication division.

J. Routledge (Chair): Okay. I'm not seeing any other questions, so with that, I'd like to thank you, Michael, and your team for coming and presenting to us, giving us a really thorough insight into what you do and what you expect to do. I'd also like to echo my appreciation for you giving some real examples of the kind of information that members of the public are looking for and what that tells us about their real lives and the importance of the information that they need to have access to.

I also think I can say, on behalf of the committee, that we really appreciate the work that went into documenting the trends so that it gives us some assurance about the resources that you need going forward and why you need them.

Finally, I'd like to say that you've given us some real insight into how important your work is with regard to ensuring the public's faith in governance. It's a really important role. Thank you very much.

Why don't we take a five-minute recess, and then we'll just do a quick check-in.

The committee recessed from 8:45 a.m. to 8:52 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): I'll entertain a motion to move in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 8:52 a.m. to 9:12 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): We are now out of camera.

A motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 9:12 a.m.