The committee met at 8:06 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): This is the continuation of the annual review of statutory officers of British Columbia, which is a three-year rolling service plan, annual report and budgetary estimates for fiscal 2022-2023.

Before asking the Merit Commissioner to make her presentation, I'd like to acknowledge that we're gathered here on the traditional, unceded territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, now known as the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

I would also like to acknowledge the impact on all of us of the weather crisis that we experienced yesterday. I want to acknowledge that there are members in this room from all over the province. While we were gathering here yesterday and today, I know that all of us have been thinking about and concerned about our families, our neighbours and our communities back home.

I know that I'm speaking for the entire committee when I say that we thank the emergency crews and the neighbours in our communities that went out of their way to keep each other safe and comforted. I hope that the spirit of social solidarity continues into the future, because we will need it.

I'll now invite our Merit Commissioner to give her presentation.

Review of Statutory Officers

OFFICE OF THE MERIT COMMISSIONER

M. Baird: I have with me Mr. Dave Van Swieten, our executive director of corporate shared services, who I believe you met yesterday. I want to say it's a real pleasure to be here in person, before this committee, to discuss with you the important work of our office — and to do so in person for the first time, both as the Merit Commissioner and before this committee.

This morning I'm going to make my comments brief, giving you a status report on the ongoing work of our office, our 2022-23 service plan and updating you on last year's budget expenditures and addressing our budget request for fiscal 2022-23.

As this is a budget presentation, with respect to fiscal 2022-23, a total request of $264,000 in operating funding and $208,000 in capital funding is requested. This funding relates entirely to the replacement of the Case Tracker System, which was presented in the fiscal 2021-22 budget cycle. There is no additional funding sought for other operational categories like inflation.

In other words, with respect to the operating and capital operational expenses for the Office of the Merit Commissioner for 2022-23, this is a stand-pat budget. It is projected that we will complete our mandated work for the current fiscal, 2021-22, within the voted appropriation.

I turn, then, to an update of the work of our office and an overview of our service plan for 2022-23 and '23-24, a copy of which you have.

[8:10 a.m.]

The Office of the Merit Commissioner, which supports me as a part-time appointee, consists of a small complement of dedicated public servants. There are four full-time and two part-time members. We are currently assisted by six external auditors who work on an as-needed, contract basis, and are paid on a fixed cost basis. We also employ other contractors, including lawyers, that we retain as needed.

Our annual report was tabled in the Legislature in May. It outlined work completed in the 2020-21 fiscal year. It included summaries of the results of our 2019-20 merit performance audit and of our staffing review activity, both of which I discussed with you when we met in June of this year. It included the inaugural reporting on our work monitoring the application of government practices, policies and standards to eligible just cause dismissals, which I also reviewed with you in June.

Just by way of background and context, the three main lines of business of the Office of the Merit Commissioner are, firstly, conducting random audits of appointments to and from within the B.C. public service, to monitor the application of the merit principle. Secondly, conducting reviews of specific appointments at the request of employee applicants as a final stage of review of staffing decisions. Thirdly, monitoring the processes of eligible just cause dismissals.

Starting with the annual merit performance audit, which, you will recall, is a random audit of appointments to and within the public service within the relevant fiscal year, I can advise that the 2020-21 audit has been completed and that detailed results were provided to organizational heads and the B.C. Public Service Agency head in October of this year. The overall report of the analysis of audit results and recommendations to address identified areas of weaknesses or concern is planned to be provided to the Legislative Assembly in early December this year.

As part of our usual overall audit reporting process, I sent the draft report to the B.C. Public Service Agency head for review and response. Historically they have responded with a commitment to address concerns raised and acknowledged that the feedback that we provide assists with the continuous improvement of hiring in the public service.

This acknowledgment by the agency underlines the value-added of an independent perspective on hiring practices and new hiring methods being introduced, which are intended to address changing or evolving demands in the public service. In addition, I meet quarterly with the head of the agency to ensure that there's a direct line of communication between the agency and our office.

I now want to turn to my mandated responsibility to be the final decision-maker with respect to staffing reviews. You will recall that I am the final step in a three-stage process, whereby unsuccessful employee candidates can have the process by which an appointment was made reviewed.

Prior to a review coming to me, the unsuccessful candidate must first seek feedback from the hiring manager, and if they choose to continue the process, they must seek an internal review of the appointment process with the relevant deputy minister. To ensure that these cases are processed in a timely way, there are prescribed deadlines of five days, required by the regulation, for the requester at each stage.

You will recall that in 2020-21, I considered 11 such staffing reviews. Of these 11 reviews, two resulted in a directed reconsideration of the appointment. In the other nine reviews, the appointment decision was upheld. I can advise you that for the current fiscal year, as of October 31, 2021, I have determined 20 staffing review requests.

While the number of reviews received and conducted in the first seven months of this year suggest that the total for the year will be significantly higher than last year, history has shown that demand can fluctuate from year to year with no relationship to the overall appointment activity in the public service.

[8:15 a.m.]

When a review request is received, we give priority to the investigation and analysis of the complaint, targeting to provide a report in response to the requester and the organization head within 30 days of receipt of the relevant documentation.

As the service plan shows, in the past year, we completed these reviews within an average of 31 days, with individual decisions being rendered between 23 and 43 days from receipt of the appointment documentation. The results of the 2021-22 reviews will be reported in the 2021-22 annual report, filed in May 2022.

In June of this year, I reviewed with you the outcome of our initial review of eligible just cause dismissals, as reported in our 2020-2021 annual report. I can advise that, to date, this year, we have received three dismissal processes for review, the results of which will be reported, along with any others eligible for review, in our next annual report, which we table in May.

Although not required by the legislation, to date, we have reviewed all just cause dismissals that are eligible for review. We anticipate doing the same again this year.

Recently I met with representatives of the B.C. Public Service Agency to discuss the results of my initial review of eligible just cause dismissals, with a view towards those results initiating change of dismissal processes to enhance and ensure fairness.

Our priorities for fiscal 2022-23 will include: to continue to provide a high level of professionalism and reporting, to ensure the application of the merit principle to appointments in the B.C. Public Service and to monitor eligible just cause dismissals to ensure that they adhere to government standards, practices and policies.

In addition, our office is scheduled to be engaged in the Case Tracker System replacement project, beginning in June of 2022. I understand that the most labour-intensive aspects will occur in the fall of 2022. This will be a significant but planned for use of the resources of our office.

Our budget submission addresses this with a one-time resource to support the implementation of the Case Tracker System. This is consistent with the submission made to this committee earlier this calendar year for $101,000 in salary and benefits. In year 2, you will see a corresponding reduction in this funding.

An additional component in the increase in salaries and benefits in the budget is to replace a part-time employee, who is planning to retire, with a full-time employee. This will assist in managing the growth of the review requests in our office. It also includes funding the overlap between the retirement and hiring the additional person to support the CTS replacement.

I just want to say a word about the impact of COVID-19 on the operation of our office. As a small office which already operated on a flexible work model, we were able to respond well to the challenges that the pandemic presented. As a result, our work was not negatively impacted. Similarly, our return-to-work plan is proceeding smoothly.

As in the past, we will continue to manage our overall budget prudently, while maintaining our high standards.

These are the remarks on the work of our office and our budget requirements to fund that work. I'll be happy to address any questions the committee may have.

J. Routledge (Chair): Thank you, Maureen. Any questions from committee members?

P. Alexis: I just wanted to say: great report. Always a pleasure to have you here. Thank you for your modest ask that already was part of last year.

[8:20 a.m.]

I'll be very interested to see how the case tracker works for everybody when it's implemented, that's for sure — lots riding on that. But just great to hear how you've managed through COVID and everything else. Thank you for the work that you're doing.

J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions, comments?

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Commissioner. I know that it's a big job. You look at the entire public service, do you — the 30,000-plus public service employees?

M. Baird: Yes. I would say that about 90 percent of the public service are under my jurisdiction. There are a few people who are not.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): Okay. You mentioned, I think it was, the random audits that you had done. Or maybe it was…. But you mentioned a number of two that had shown that there was a particular issue where maybe the appointment or the hiring or that decision was not consistent or something like that. Can you just explain? What does the PSA and the people that are the heads end up doing in that particular case? Where does it lead to for the person that's either the complainant or the person that's feeling unjustly not appointed or considered?

M. Baird: Right. So your question relates to the staffing review aspect of my mandate, and that's the one where last year we had 11 and this year, to date, we have 20, which suggests that by the end of the fiscal year, there will be even more.

Those are circumstances where there's an unsuccessful employee candidate, and that candidate believes that there was an error in the process. There's a broad range of errors that they identify. Sometimes they might suggest that there was bias in the process. They might say that there was some other kind of unfairness that applied to them — that the questions were put to them differently than to other candidates, for example. Those candidates have a vehicle, a mechanism to redress those concerns, and that is, ultimately, to come to me.

First, they have two steps to do. They have to go to the hiring manager for feedback. Certainly, some potential staffing reviews end at the feedback stage, because when the employee meets with the hiring manager, they're satisfied with the explanation they get about why they were unsuccessful. If they're not happy with the feedback that they get from the hiring manager, they can request an internal review from the deputy minister. Each of these has a five-day limit, so they have to ask for feedback within five days and move to the internal result within five days of the feedback.

The deputy minister does a review of the process by which the appointment occurred and issues a result to the unhappy employee. If that doesn't satisfy the employee's concerns, then within five days, they can ask me to do the final stage. There are, essentially, two results that can happen. One is that I can direct that there be a reconsideration of the appointment, or I uphold the appointment. If there's a reconsideration, then the deputy minister will go back, yet again, usually with the hiring manager, and will review the entire process.

It's a very thorough review that's done — it is not superficial in any way — and may conclude, having again reviewed the entire process, that there will be no change. That is entirely within their discretion to determine. Once I have decided that a reconsideration will occur, that exhausts my authority.

[8:25 a.m.]

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): So the numbers, even on the number that you referred to today — 20 year-to-date, with more to come in, likely…. I guess, based on the number of the staff that are out there and the consideration and the PSA…. Relatively, I would say, there must be a high degree of satisfaction with the decisions made by deputy ministers and the people throughout. A high degree meaning out of 30,000 we're only dealing with…. I realize that there are other steps in the way. But, anyway, am I correct in assuming that?

M. Baird: Of course, we're all nervous about making assumptions about anything, but it certainly is a modest amount for the number of appointments, because it's only, of course, appointments that we're looking at, not the full number of the public service. I haven't committed these numbers to memory, but each year there are, I think, about 5,000 or so appointments. I'm not entirely certain about that number, but it certainly is less than the number of the people in the public service.

B. Stewart (Deputy Chair): The last question is, considering where we're at in terms of what we're hearing in other labour markets, etc.: are there any concerns that you're seeing in terms of interest in the public service, the quality of the people that are applying, etc.? In the sense, are we still trying to excel at…? I forget the leadership term. I think it was called the Pacific leadership term. I only say that meaning: is the PSA attracting the people that we need, and is there more to be done? That's all.

M. Baird: I have a really limited ability to judge that. Of course, the ultimate benefit of the work that my office does is to ensure that hiring practices are done at a high standard. The expectation, of course, is that that standard results in a high level of appointment.

The only time that I actually review whether the qualifications for a position have been met or not is part of the merit performance audit. That's the audit where we audit 280 random appointments, and one of the categories of things that we look at, as part of the results of that audit, is whether the people who are ultimately appointed met the qualifications that were posted for that position — I don't have these numbers at hand or memory either, but historically, the numbers have been very high, in terms of people being qualified — and also that the process followed was well done. Those numbers also have been good.

J. Routledge (Chair): Are there any other questions for Maureen or Dave?

Okay. Well, it looks like it's pretty straightforward. I want to thank you for coming in and making your presentation and answering our questions. I guess, in conclusion, what I'd like to say is, as you point out, it is a small office, but the role that you play in upholding the principle and application of merit is really important. It's important from the point of view of maintaining morale in the public service and faith on the part of the public that they're well represented and well served by the public service. Thank you for your work.

We will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 8:29 a.m. to 8:35 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

Deliberations

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

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 8:35 a.m. to 9:19 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 9:19 a.m.