The committee met at 8:04 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): Today we’re hearing from statutory officers for their financial and operational updates.

[8:05 a.m.]

First up we have Elections B.C. and Dr. Keith Archer. Welcome.

Financial and Operational Updates
from Statutory Officers

ELECTIONS B.C.

K. Archer: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Mr. Deputy Chair and members of the committee. I’m very pleased to be here this morning for the annual midyear meeting with the committee. I’m joined today at the table by my two deputies, Nola Western, the deputy CEO for funding and disclosure, and Anton Boegman, the deputy CEO for electoral operations.

Before I begin my comments today, and on a personal note, I can advise the committee that my term as Chief Electoral Officer ends on May 31. Therefore, I expect this to be my last meeting with this committee. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the committee, both its current and former members, as well as its current and former Chair and Deputy Chair, as well as the Office of the Clerk of Committees for the respect and professionalism my colleagues and I have experienced in our interactions with this committee.

Accountability and transparency are two of the core values of Elections B.C. We hold ourselves to those values every day and are proud of the work we do on behalf of supporting a healthy democracy in British Columbia.

I’d like to speak with the committee today about three matters. First, to update you on my supplementary funding request at our meeting of February 6. Second, to advise you of two on-demand electoral events for the current fiscal year — that’s 2018-19 — as well as a supplementary budget request for these events. And third, to discuss with this committee, as the only legislative committee to which I have access, my recent report on recommendations for legislative change, a report that was tabled in the Legislature on Monday of this week.

I’ll proceed with my comments in that order. I believe you’ve received documents to support our discussion of these items.

First, a supplementary funding request from February 6. I’ve exchanged several letters with the Chair of the committee regarding my supplementary budget request of February 6, and we have worked with the Clerk of Committees on the development of new templates for supplementary requests.

We’ve completed and submitted the templates as requested. You’ll see, for example, in table 1 of our supplementary budget submission that we have provided separate columns for the approved budget, based on our November meeting; the approved supplementary budget, based on the February 6 meeting; as well as separate columns for the new supplementary budget request, which I’ll discuss in a few minutes.

I canvassed the expenditure requirements that arise from legislated changes to provincial electoral finance and local elections campaign finance provisions in detail at our February 6 meeting. My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer any further questions that you have.

An additional item, addressed in my letter of March 14 to the Chair, is expense reimbursements for candidates in political parties. In response to the committee’s request that I propose a solution that is workable and administratively efficient, my proposal is the following: upon the completion of final count for an election, Elections B.C. will identify the number of parties and candidates eligible to receive reimbursement, and the maximum value of the reimbursement.

The Chief Electoral Officer will inform the committee, through the Clerk of Committees, of this value as soon as possible thereafter. In addition, following the 90-day period in which the political parties and candidates file their financial reports for the election, Elections B.C. will calculate an initial maximum reimbursement value. The Chief Electoral Officer will inform the committee, through the Clerk of Committees, of these values as soon as possible thereafter.

I would note for the committee’s information that there may be circumstances in which Elections B.C. may be legally required to issue reimbursement payments prior to this committee being advised of these values. For example, following the 41st provincial general election, this committee was first convened on September 18, 2017, which was more than five weeks after the August 8 deadline for election expense financial disclosures.

[8:10 a.m.]

Had the new legislation been in effect at that time, the first instalment of reimbursements by Elections B.C. to political parties and candidates would have been completed before the end of August.

Secondly, new supplementary funding requests for 2018-19. Today I’m bringing forward two supplementary budget requests for on-demand electoral events. It’s worth noting that these requests are more typical of the supplementary funding requests of Elections B.C. than was our request at the February 6 meeting.

At that meeting, I brought forward a request that stemmed from a significant and far-reaching change to our mandate based on changes to the election and political financing model used in British Columbia. That request had long-term and ongoing financial requirements for Elections B.C. With the request brought forward today, I’m advising of our spending requirements to administer on-demand events.

The first supplementary funding request I’m bringing forward today is for interim funding for required expenditures to administer the 2018 referendum on changing the way that British Colombians elect the members of the Legislative Assembly.

It is long-established practice at Elections B.C. that the Chief Electoral Officer submits budget requirements to this committee as soon as possible after being advised of the requirement to deliver an on-demand electoral event, including the administrative details of the event. Our intention is to maintain that standard for the upcoming referendum.

Although the legislation requiring the referendum was passed during the fall 2017 session, the administrative details will be confirmed with the issuance of the referendum regulation, which has not been issued to date. However, there’s one expenditure, the ordering of paper stock for ballot packages and envelopes, that has a relatively long lead time in view of the volumes required, and this order must be submitted immediately.

The cost of the paper products for the referendum is presented as a separate submission in our supplementary budget request and totals $770,000. This constitutes a one-time expenditure. The full supplementary budget request for the referendum will be submitted to this committee following the publication of the regulation.

The second request is for funds to administer an initiative petition that was approved in principle on May 3, 2018, entitled “An Initiative to Cancel the Site C Dam Project.” The petition will be issued on July 3, 2018.

Under the Recall and Initiative Act, a petition has several phases. Once a petition is approved in principle, there’s a 60-day time period for the registration of canvassers and for the registration of opponent groups. During this period, there’s a statutory requirement that Elections B.C. advertise the approval in principle of the petition. The petition signature forms are then issued to the proponent following the 60-day period, which then begins the 90-day canvassing period in which the proponent can gather signatures.

The requirement for a successful petition is for the signatures of at least 10 percent of registered voters in each of the 87 electoral districts. Once the petition is returned to Elections B.C., we make the determination of whether there may be sufficient signatures to justify initiating a 42-day signature verification process. If so, the budget must reflect the additional costs associated with verification. If not, the petition ends there and no additional expenditures are required.

The supplementary budget submission separates the costs associated with administrating the registration and canvassing periods — which, as you’ll see, are at $19,000 — and the verification phase, which totals $782,000. Therefore, total costs for the initiative petition are $801,000, which is a similar amount approved for the most recent initiative petition in 2016.

[8:15 a.m.]

The third matter I’d like to discuss with you today is a consideration of the Report on Recommendations for Legislative Change. Section 12(2)(a) of the Election Act empowers the Chief Electoral Officer to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly respecting amendments to the Election Act or other amendments affecting election matters. It’s customary, at Elections B.C., that such a report on recommendations for legislative change is issued typically within a year following each general election.

I was pleased to see, several years ago, that this committee decided to hold spring meetings, outside the regular fall meeting schedule, to engage in broader discussions with the statutory officers of the Legislature. I believe it’s a unique and important opportunity for my office to have a detailed discussion with you on my report on recommendations for legislative change.

This report was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on Monday of this week. In addition, on April 18, I consulted with the Election Advisory Committee on this report, as I’m required to do by the Election Act.

Now, by their very nature, recommendations for legislative change can vary considerably. Some are broad in scope, timely and urgent. Some are more narrow in scope. They address issues of a longer standing or have less urgency. Some recommendations can address policy matters where there may be differences in perspectives amongst legislators or electoral stakeholders, more generally, whereas others are more administrative in character. Indeed, some may be considered to be housekeeping.

This report, like previous reports on recommendations for legislative change introduced during my tenure in this office, highlights a small number of priority recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. In this report, in fact, there are four priority recommendations. In addition, there’s a longer list of what we describe as technical recommendations, which are categorized as those relating to electoral operations or funding and disclosure.

I’ll focus my comments on those four priority recommendations this morning, and my colleagues and I would be pleased to respond to comments and questions on anything in the report in the question-and-answer session.

Priority recommendation No. 1: allow provisional voter registration of 16- and 17-year-olds. This is a recommendation that’s been made previously by me and by my predecessor.

The backdrop to this recommendation is straightforward. There’s been a significant decline in voter turnout in British Columbia elections, as well as those in many other Canadian jurisdictions, over the past generation. Where once it was common to have 70 to 75 percent of eligible voters turn out at elections, this has dropped to around 60 percent for recent elections.

Furthermore, although there’s been a slight uptick in voter turnout in the most recent two provincial general elections, we continue to demonstrate historically low levels of turnout. Research has shown that almost all of the decline in voter turnout owes to lower rates of voter engagement amongst the youngest eligible voters. Whereas voters older than 35 years of age are turning out at provincial elections in proportions similar to longer-term rates, turnout has declined sharply for the youngest electors.

It’s also been shown that voter registration has a strong impact on voter turnout. Those who are not registered are much less likely to vote than those who are registered.

A final piece of the puzzle is that rates of voter registration are not consistent amongst age groups. For those over 35 years of age, over 95 percent of eligible voters are on the voters list. For those 18 to 24 years of age, that percentage drops to about 70 percent of eligible voters.

This finding has led a number of jurisdictions in Canada to provide the election agency with the authority to establish a category of registration, typically known as provisional registration, for 16- and 17-year-olds who otherwise meet the qualifications for registering. Once these voters turn 18, they automatically are transferred to the voters list.

[8:20 a.m.]

We believe this authority would enable Elections B.C. to work towards having higher rates of voter registration amongst 18- to 24-year-olds and would provide new opportunities to engage with other agencies, such as schools or the drivers licensing authority, to provide increased exposure to voter registration in advance of those people turning 18.

Priority recommendation No. 2: to help maintain a high-quality voters list, provide Elections B.C. with greater access to personal information — including name, residential address and date or birth — held by public bodies.

This recommendation also focuses on the quality of the voters list, but the target here is all voters and particularly those with information changes between elections, such as those people who move or who otherwise change their eligibility.

This recommendation starts from the premise that Elections B.C. maintains a continuous register of voters, and we have done so now for many decades. Our approach to updating the voters list, particularly between elections, is to rely on data exchanges between a small number of public bodies to receive updates on changes to the names and residential addresses of electors. But the number of public bodies from which we can receive updates is quite limited, including ICBC, Vital Statistics and Elections Canada. We also receive post-election updates from local governments that use the provincial voters list for local elections.

Other jurisdictions in Canada have moved to provide the election agency with broader authorities to obtain this basic personal information from public bodies for the purpose of maintaining a continuously updated list. For example, legislatures in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia all have provided for their respective election agencies to gain access to voter information held by any public body defined by those jurisdictions’ freedom of information and protection of privacy acts. In Quebec, the election agency has authority to obtain elector information — that is, name, residential address and date of birth — from the provincial health authority.

Broadening the list of public bodies to which Elections B.C. can access personal information for the purpose of updating the voters list would lead to a voters list of higher quality throughout the election cycle, which is important in view of the large number of on-demand events we deliver.

Priority recommendation No. 3: allow greater use of technology in voting and counting administration. I would think it’s fair to say that this is by far the most far-reaching of the recommendations.

Many aspects of voting administration in British Colum­bia, as in most other Canadian jurisdictions, are strikingly similar to processes introduced during our formative years. For example, voting by paper ballot, structuring the organization of election administration around the polling division — or voting area, in our parlance — having a staffing model that ties two election officials to each voting area and counting all ballots by hand are features present both in 1871 and in 2018.

Over time, a number of important innovations have been included in the voting model in British Columbia, probably most important of which are the more widespread availability of advance voting and the introduction of the so-called vote anywhere model, where voters are able to cast an absentee ballot outside their voting area or outside their electoral district.

Many of the features of our voting and counting model were designed and implemented long before the advent of modern computing technology. The latter enables us to re­imagine and redesign key features of voting administration.

Over the past several years, Elections B.C., working independently on ways to improve voter and election stakeholder services and in discussions with other election agencies, has developed a vision for the future of elections in this province that would introduce more contemporary practices and provide greater efficiency while at the same time maintaining a high level of integrity in our elections.

[8:25 a.m.]

We conducted preliminary discussions with political parties and other stakeholders a couple of years ago and have now produced a report on electoral modernization that’s included as an appendix to this report on recommendations for legislative change.

I don’t have the time to review this appendix in detail today, but I would highlight several features that would be key changes and improvements in our system should the report be adopted.

We propose going further down the road of the vote anywhere model where voters no longer are assigned to a specific voting area but, rather, can vote using a simple ballot at any voting location. Each voting place provides electronic strike-off, and candidates have immediate access to voter participation data through a dedicated portal.

Ballots can be printed on demand for any electoral district, eliminating the need for write-in ballots. And real-time strike-off at networked voting places means that all ballots can be counted on election night, eliminating the need for separate initial and final counts.

Furthermore, ballots are counted through the use of ballot tabulators. Staffing at the voting place can be adjusted to accommodate slow and peak times, and a paper ballot for use in judicial recounts ensures a highly transparent and auditable process, producing results with high integrity.

The features of electoral modernization described in this report are independent of any type of electoral system in use. They can be implemented in our current first-past-the-post system or in a revised proportional system. The time frame for implementation of a new system would be from three to six years, including between 18 and 24 months following passage of the legislation to implement a new voting and counting model.

We’ve undertaken a preliminary business case for implementing the new model. It assumes that the technology would be operational for two successive general elections. Without going into too much detail, the results are additional expenditures, mostly for technology, over two elections of about $11 million, and savings, mostly in personnel, of about $14 million, for total net savings of about $3 million.

In view of the breadth of the changes required for this vision to be implemented, our recommendation is for the establishment of a separate legislative committee to review the Election Act, with an eye towards implementation.

Priority recommendation No. 4: lengthen the campaign period for on-demand provincial general elections. My comments on this recommendation will be brief.

British Columbia has a 29-day campaign period for elections, whether that’s for a general election or a by-election. We’ve adjusted our processes since the advent of fixed-date elections to ensure we can deliver a general election based on this 29-day election calendar.

Furthermore, for by-elections, we have the advantages of conducting a small number of elections, usually limited to one or two electoral districts, as well as the warrant from the Speaker to ensure we have sufficient time to complete the preparations to conduct the event in a 29-day calendar.

However, recent circumstances have enabled us to review the extent to which this calendar is compatible with an on-demand provincial general election. Our assessment is that the large number of requirements for such a general election would provide substantial challenges to conduct such an event within a 29-day calendar.

The recommendation to extend the campaign period in an on-demand election from a 29-day calendar to a range from a 33- to a 39-day election calendar is intended to im­prove services to voters and candidates and provide better election administration practices.

That ends my introductory remarks this morning. My colleagues and I are pleased to respond to any comments or questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Dr. Archer. I really appreciate the thoroughness of the report. Just a couple of quick things. Then we’ll go to questions.

[8:30 a.m.]

I wanted to congratulate you on trying to get more youth voters voting. That’s wonderful.

I’m wondering on the data side, though. Did you happen to get any legal advice in terms of privacy concerns or any issues just around the various acts that protect privacy, in terms of information?

K. Archer: The information that we’re seeking is name, residential address and date of birth. Are you talking about the data exchanges between other public bodies?

B. D’Eith (Chair): Yes, the access to data recommendation.

K. Archer: We haven’t had further discussions with OIPC or others on that. My sense is that the data that we’re seeking are data that we have a right to collect through the Election Act, and we already have the authority in the Election Act to engage with some public bodies, but not all public bodies, on the gathering of that data.

T. Redies: Thank you, Dr. Archer, for your presentation, and congratulations on your term. Thank you for everything you’ve done.

Two questions. First, in terms of the petition, I’m sorry, but I’m ignorant in terms of how this all works. Can any petition come forward to you to be approved, and is there any process that it goes through in order to make sure whether it’s legitimate or not?

K. Archer: Sure. I’ll start, and then I’ll ask Anton if he has any further clarifications.

The Recall and Initiative Act provides the opportunity for any registered voter in British Columbia to submit a petition application. The petition application includes a proposed bill, and that bill is reviewed by us for two criteria. First, does it fall within provincial jurisdiction? Second, is it clear and understandable? Those are the only two criteria that we use to evaluate a petition coming forward.

I don’t know the number of petitions that we have processed to date. Anton may or may not have that number.

A. Boegman: Eleven.

K. Archer: We’ve processed 11. One was successful, although successful with a caveat, I would say.

Yeah, it’s one of those instruments of direct democracy that’s unique within British Columbia, and it provides citizens with an opportunity to propose legislation.

T. Redies: If I may, my second question. I’m very interested in modernizing the electoral system, because I think we are behind many jurisdictions. Just curious, and it’s a little bit of a specific question. I notice that you’ve got about $11 million of hardware there. I presume it’s servers. Did you look at, perhaps, the comparable costs of storing data in the cloud? It’s a lot cheaper and also becoming much more secure. I’ll just ask that as a question.

K. Archer: I think I’ll turn that one to Anton, initially, and I’ll see if I have any further comments after his response.

A. Boegman: Certainly, the technology cost is actually primarily for electronic poll books, or e-poll books, and tabulators. There is a small portion of that for the servers, and typically there are vendors that provide these services, whether it’s a company like Dominion Voting or Election Services and Supplies. They do use the cloud for some of their data storage, but most of the cost is for e-poll books and tabulators.

M. Dean: Thank you for all of your work, Dr. Archer, and best wishes for where you’re moving on to.

I had a question about recommendations 3 and 4. Say we moved forward with recommendation 3 and modernized in terms of technology and technological systems, then where would that leave recommendation 4 in terms of still needing that longer writ period?

K. Archer: The recommendation to have a longer writ period for on-demand events is intended largely to ensure that we achieve some efficiencies in securing and delivering materials out to distributed district electoral offices and then from there out to distributed voting places. We tend to be still a very materials-intensive business and will continue to be a very material-intensive business even under the new voting model that’s described in the appendix.

[8:35 a.m.]

One of the logistical questions that we have for an on-demand event is: where are our district electoral officers securing their spaces — their offices, for example? What we have discovered is that the shorter the time frame we have to do that work means the more compromises we have to engage in.

In reflecting on how this would occur, if we have no lead time, if there’s an unexpected, on-demand general election, we need to have our district electoral offices up and running almost immediately. People have the right to vote as soon as possible after the writ is issued.

In practice, what that means in British Columbia is that some people vote on writ day. Under our system of government, it’s conceivable that the government could be defeated at any time, whether it’s in this parliament or a different parliament. Under a minority government, a legislature could be defeated at any time.

Elections B.C. will deliver an event, and we’ll spend the money to deliver that event. I think it’s my responsibility to bring forward a recommendation to talk about the efficiency with which we can do that, and the fact is that under our current 29-day calendar, a snap general election will be relatively expensive compared to general elections, generally. Extending this campaign period provides us with greater capacity to introduce some efficiencies into that process.

A. Boegman: If I could add to that, the other issue that we considered, particularly for this, was accessibility to potential candidates. There is a seven-day nomination period under the current legislation. In a completely unscheduled event, an on-demand event, we felt that that was not sufficient to enable wide access for individuals wishing to be candidates in the election. Extending the campaign period would allow for a longer time period for individuals to become candidates, as well, so that was an important factor.

A. Weaver: I was interested to see that this is the second time you’ve put in the recommendation to reduce the registration age to 16- and 17-year-olds.

My question is twofold on this. One is: how fast could this be done? If government were to suggest that this is a direction we’d like to head, how fast could that be implemented? Two is: would it lead to better voter lists at election time?

One of the concerns I have, representing a university riding, is that a substantial number of people sign up. They’re 18-year-olds from wherever they may be. It may not reflect…. They may be flying back to their homes, or they may be at university. There’s a lot of confusion there if they’re not on the list.

Would there be a net savings to this, and would it provide a more accurate voter list? Two, how fast could it be done?

K. Archer: I’ll start, and I think Anton may have a response as well.

My sense is that there wouldn’t be much of a lead time required to put in place a provisional voters list. The design of the system would be fairly straightforward. The thing that would take longer, I think, would be effective outreach strategies to ensure that the provisional voter registration not only exists but that it has a big impact. That would, of course, be the intention.

Personally, I think the greatest opportunity lies in having a stronger partnership with teachers in the post-secondary system, developing a strong and powerful curriculum that enables students to learn about the electoral, democratic process and the role within it and to complete a provisional voter registration application at that time, as part of the school system.

The formal implementation — again, not much of a lead time and certainly well in advance of our next scheduled general election. The implementation, I would think, we could roll out over a year or a couple of years.

[8:40 a.m.]

In terms of the quality of the voters list for people at universities, this is one of the big challenges for us. We have so many young people who are not on the voters list and become eligible. The other part of the question, for students studying away at university, is that they have a choice as to where they declare to be their principal residence. They could do it at their university address. They could do it, perhaps, at their parents’ address or at some other address that they live at outside the school year. My sense is that a lot of students are confused about that, if they’re trying to act on that in the intensity of an election campaign.

Our goal in trying to improve the quality of the voters list is to try to get as much of the administrative work of improving the quality of the voters list outside the direct election campaign period and into a more normal period for people when they can be more deliberate about it.

R. Leonard: Thank you for your presentation. I also wish you well after May 31, wherever your life takes you.

I had a couple of questions. On the issue of equity, there are some kids who are 16- or 17-year-olds who don’t attend school, and I’m wondering if you have considered within that realm of going outside of the institutional settings to be able to access kids who are out in the working world and who have given up on school.

Another question I had. In your presentation on the budget last fall, you had talked about needing to be constantly ready in case of an on-demand event and needing funding for that. The notion of extending the writ period wasn’t talked about at that point. I’m just wondering. You just mentioned the on-demand event being called and then needing some time to get ready. So I’m just wanting to rationalize the earlier funding to be ready at all times to what you just said.

K. Archer: Sure. On the first issue: have we explored engaging with young people, 16- and 17-year-olds, outside of the school environment? I would say that this is very early days in our discussion of a strategy that we would put in place in the event that we have the authority to preregister 16- and 17-year-olds. At the moment, I don’t have the authority to do that, and consequently, I can’t justify spending any public funds in doing that.

What I can say is that the same question arises for 18- to 24-year-olds, some of whom are at university or college and relatively easier for us to contact and some who are not. Research has shown that those who are not are even least likely both to be on the voters list and to vote.

As part of our overall outreach efforts in advance of the two general elections in which I’ve been the Chief Electoral Officer, we have developed an outreach strategy that focuses both on young people in school and young people not in school. I would anticipate that that kind of a dual strategy would be applied in the event that we have the authority to preregister 16- and 17-year-olds as well.

On the question of the fact that our budget submission indicated a need for ongoing operating expenses in anticipation of a potential early election call over the course of this fiscal year, and the question of not recommending at the time that the writ period be extended, I guess I would remind the committee of the kinds of expenditures we’re talking about when we talk about election readiness.

A big part of that is the hiring of our DEOs, district electoral officers, and their deputies, who are all in place. All 87 of our district electoral officers are hired. They’re doing some work for us over the course of the entire election cycle.

[8:45 a.m.]

I would note, parenthetically, this is a strategy that Elections Canada has recently adopted as well. Returning officers federally are now hired for ten-year periods and have some work to do throughout the election cycle. The result is some ongoing costs that are assigned to election readiness.

That was a big part of the election readiness budget that we have in place. We also provide them with some technology, and we have some costs associated with supporting their access to that technology.

I didn’t mention the recommendation to extend the writ period back then because, again, that requires legislative change, and it was suitable that that be included in a report on recommendations for legislative change. We had certainly talked about it within our office, but this is the appropriate time to bring it forward to the Legislative Assembly.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much, Dr. Archer.

Picking up on that a bit, I’m just wondering. You have all these officers that are there. Are they also working on the voters list at all? Do they have very specific tasks? I’m wondering. If they’re already hired, they might, being on the ground, have the opportunity to actually improve that voters list while employed.

K. Archer: Sure. I’ll ask Anton to respond to the work that’s currently assigned to our DEOs and their deputies.

A. Boegman: Currently, under our approach to on-demand readiness, there is an assignment that we give them prior to each legislative session. Essentially, the first one is just to orient themselves again with their district. We had quite a lot of turnover — new staff at both the district electoral officer and deputy district electoral officer level.

They’re looking at their district, they’re making a plan for what they need to do, and they’re identifying, potentially, who would be their key staff should an election be called. But that is the extent of the work that they’re doing right now in the field.

If we were to determine that we think there is a greater likelihood of there being an on-demand election, then the scale of work that we would assign to the district electoral officers and their deputies in the field would increase and would include things like outreach within their communities.

N. Western: Can I just add that they’re paid for the work that they actually do. It’s not like they’re full-time salaried employees that are twiddling their thumbs. They’re only paid for the work packages that Anton sends them.

A. Boegman: That’s right. It’s a very limited scope of work that we’re giving them to do at the current time. But it is very necessary that we have them all in place and appointed.

Those costs, as you recall from the meeting in November, were one-time costs we were requesting funding for at that time. But that would mean that we wouldn’t have to have those costs at a later time associated with the next general election, whenever that may be.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.

Were there any questions on the supplementary funding before we break? Okay.

I would like to thank you and your staff very much for the presentation.

Also, Dr. Archer, I wanted to, on behalf of the committee…. I’m sure we can all say that we very much appreciate everything you’ve done, the service you’ve provided, and wish you all the best in your future endeavours. We look forward to hearing what your next adventures are going to be. So thank you very, very much.

I’d like to recess right now.

The committee recessed from 8:48 a.m. to 8:54 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We’re getting an update from our statutory officers, and I’m very pleased to have the Office of Merit Commissioner — Fiona Spencer.

The floor is yours.

OFFICE OF THE MERIT COMMISSIONER

F. Spencer: Thanks for this opportunity. With me today is someone I think you’ve seen before and you’ll probably see again in the next couple of days. It’s Dave Van Swieten, our executive director of corporate shared services.

Thanks so much for the opportunity to meet today and speak to you about the role of the Office of the Merit Commissioner.

As you may be aware, just a few weeks ago my mandate was expanded, through amendments to the Public Service Act, to include independent oversight of just cause dismissal processes in the public service. The office is pleased to take on this new and important function, and I’ll speak to those responsibilities later in my remarks.

[8:55 a.m.]

At this point, though, I’d like to speak to you about the role and mandate of the office prior to these amendments, the work undertaken last fiscal year, how we expended the funds allocated to the Office of the Merit Commissioner and what our current activities entail.

Until recently, the Merit Commissioner’s mandate has included two major responsibilities: undertaking the audit of appointments to and from within the B.C. public service and acting as the final level of review of certain appointment decisions upon request of unsuccessful employee applicants.

Each year we conduct what we term a merit performance audit. We randomly select, from all eligible public service appointments, a sample that is robust enough that the results of our audits of these appointments can be generalized across the broader population.

When I met with you in early November last year, we were in the final stages of the merit performance audit for 2016-17. In that audit, we examined 257 randomly selected appointments and made two determinations: whether the recruitment and selection process was both properly designed and applied to result in an appointment based on merit and whether the individual appointed was qualified.

We found that…. With respect to recruitment and selection processes, approximately 43 percent of appointments were found to be the result of a merit-based process. A further 47 percent were found to be merit-based, but errors were identified. The remaining 9 percent of appointments audited were found to be the result of a process that was not merit-based.

Of interest are the errors identified with respect to the recruitment and selection process. These errors, which are reported by the category or stage of the process in which they occurred, highlight where changes to policy, process or procedures can have a positive impact on merit-based hiring in the public service. We see these findings as warning flags for managers in the B.C. Public Service Agency — a warning that if action is not taken to address the flaws identified, more serious problems could occur.

The majority of errors we found related to shortlisting, interviewing and testing, and the assessment of past work performance. We found problems related to the definition of selection criteria, the absence or incompleteness of objective assessment standards and the lack of assessment of certain factors, such as past work performance or years of continuous service.

Regular audit serves to keep such matters in the forefront and helps ensure hiring practices are given periodic scrutiny and hiring managers get feedback on how they are conducting their hiring activities. At certain stages in our audit, we provide deputy ministers and organization heads with detailed feedback on the results of any appointments audited within their organizations, and we provide the head of the B.C. Public Service Agency with aggregate information and details of problems or issues that we may have identified.

Our recommendations are generally accepted, and often we see practice and procedures amended or implemented in order to address our concerns. Over the years, we’ve seen improvements in those areas where such action has been taken.

With respect to the qualifications of the individuals ap­pointed last year, in all but three cases, the individuals whose appointments were selected for audit were considered to have the qualifications specified as necessary at the time of the appointment. We have found no evidence of patronage appointments or partisanship.

Based on the results of our audit activity overall, I would say that the state of merit-based hiring in the B.C. public service is sound. We are encouraged that the types of issues we are identifying are generally fixable through training, education, change of practice or procedure, as well as care and attention to detail.

Now turning to what has been the second main line of business for the Office of the Merit Commissioner: employee-requested reviews of staffing decisions.

When unsuccessful employee applicants for bargaining unit positions request a review by the Merit Commissioner of an appointment decision, it is the final level of review provided for in legislation. Such a review follows an internal inquiry by the appropriate deputy minister. The number of reviews the office receives has never been predictable and cannot be connected or attributed to any particular actions or events in the public service.

In 2016-17, the office saw the highest level of requests since the inception of the office, at 25. Of these, 17 were considered eligible for review. In 13 of these 17 cases, I upheld the staffing decision. In the other four cases, the deputy minister was directed to reconsider the appointment decision.

We are currently conducting an analysis to see if there are common elements or concerns being identified, and a report will be finalized in the coming months.

[9:00 a.m.]

Given the unpredictable nature of requests for review, work planning can be tricky. We try to complete these reviews within a 30-day time period and have met this target every year for the last six years. However, given the volume last year, our responses averaged 36 days.

With a small team, this volume of activity has an impact on workload, but we were able to direct some of our HR professionals who work for us on a contract basis and also increase the hours of two program managers who work part-time.

As we moved into the new fiscal year, we were well into the audit of approximately 265 appointments made during 2017-2018. We have also undertaken an audit of auxiliary appointments. These are appointments that are generally short term or temporary in nature and made for specific purposes, without a competitive process.

This particular audit will allow us to make a determination as to the qualifications of the individuals who have been appointed to such positions and if the appointments were based on merit, which is a requirement under the Public Service Act. In the past six weeks, we’ve already received four requests for review.

Now I’d just like to turn, for a few minutes, to the new responsibilities of the Merit Commissioner resulting from the changes to the Public Service Act, which relate to the review of just-cause dismissals in the public service.

The government’s decision to assign these duties to me flowed from a recommendation made by the Ombudsperson in his report entitled Misfire: The 2012 Ministry of Health Employment Terminations and Related Matters. In short, I will be providing independent oversight to ensure that there has been proper adherence to government policies, practices and standards to identify systemic issues and make observations and recommendations for improvement through public reporting.

I will not be making a determination with respect to the validity or strength of any dismissal case itself or provide a remedy in individual cases. For this reason, files will not come to me until all avenues of recourse have been exhausted or timelines for challenge have passed. This means that the earliest we could see a file for review would likely be in the fall.

The office has turned itself to planning for how this new mandate will be fulfilled: the preparation of systems and processes, the engagement of staff and professionals to assist and the estimating of setup and ongoing costs.

As you’re likely aware, our operating budget for the last fiscal year was $1.125 million. We concluded the year with $22,692, or 2 percent, in unexpended funds. If there had been no change to my mandate, in November I would likely not be seeking any adjustment to the budget for the office. But clearly, it will be necessary for me to come forward at that time for additional funds to address these new duties.

I think it is too early in the planning stage, with respect to the dismissal review process, for me to put before you even a rough estimate with respect to budget requirement, but I expect to be able to provide you with a detailed cost estimate when I appear before you in the fall.

In the meantime, I plan to manage costs within my existing budget. We will track expenses related to my new, expanded mandate separately and, should it be necessary, request access to contingency funding at an appropriate time.

That’s all I’d like to say. I’d be happy to respond to any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments, especially on the new Public Service Act’s responsibilities. We appreciate that.

Just a quick question. Right now, as you just said, you feel that you can work within the budget that you have. But do you anticipate that you’d need to come back to the committee prior to the fall? I mean, how are you feeling on that right now, given that you’ve already had some uptake on this?

F. Spencer: Right. Well, as I was saying, I don’t think I’m actually going to have to be reviewing any files until later into the fall. What that means now for me, from now until that time, is we’re really looking at planning and starting to set up some of the systems and processes.

We’ve taken a quick look, a very rough estimate, and I think, given my budget and the fact that in November there’s still a third of the year left, I’m pretty confident I’ll be able to manage within my current budget on that basis and track those costs.

I’ve spoken with Dave about it, and we’re confident about that.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.

Any questions from the committee?

M. Dean: Thanks for your work, and thank you for looking ahead, as well, and helping us understand what’s coming.

I’m just wondering. When you do come back in the fall, what kind of information will you bring to the committee to help us understand what the new duties will mean and how you will calculate the financial impact?

F. Spencer: Okay. Two things I’d hope to be able to do in the fall, or before that, are to let you know how it is we intend to conduct this activity and fulfil this part of my mandate — that is, the systems and process that we have set up and how we are going to engage someone to actually do the reviews….

[9:05 a.m.]

I’m not sure I’ll be able to report on any of that activity, in terms of reviews being conducted in the fall, but I would let you know how I’m going to do that.

The other thing I would be able to tell you is what the cost, to date, had been in terms of setup costs and what we estimate to be the ongoing costs into the future. Then I’d be able to give you, hopefully, a fairly clear indication of what I think a change to my budget may be.

As I say, I spend almost all my funds right now on the current work of the office, so I do know that I am going to need some other, additional, money. At this point, I really don’t think I could give you an estimate.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Following up on that, between now and the fall, it would be fine if you reached that conclusion. Maybe, perhaps, send us a letter or some interim statement of something so that we could at least keep up to date with your progress on that. It’d be probably very helpful.

Of course, Kate is not seated beside me to nod or whack me…. [Laughter.]

F. Spencer: Okay. No, I’d be happy to do that. I hope, certainly before November, to be in a position to provide some more detailed information. So if it’s helpful to you, I could provide that to you in writing before I get here in November. Then if you have some more detailed questions at that time, I’d be able to respond.

B. D’Eith (Chair): That’d be great. Thank you so much.

F. Spencer: Thanks. That would be a great opportunity.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Seeing no more questions, I wanted to thank you, Fiona, for your service and everything you’re doing in taking on this new responsibility. We really appreciate it. Thanks for the report — really appreciate it.

Let’s take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 9:06 a.m. to 9:09 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): A motion to go in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 9:09 a.m. to 9:12 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): We are back in public session.

Ronna-Rae, you have a motion.

Votes on Supplementary Funding

ELECTIONS B.C.

R. Leonard: I’d like to move:

[That the Committee recommend that Elections BC be granted access to supplementary funding up to $770,000 for operating expenditures in 2018/19 for the administration of the vote-by-mail provincial referendum on electoral reform.]

Secondly:

[That the Committee recommend that Elections BC be grated access to supplementary funding up to $19,000 for operating expenditures in 2018/19 to administer an initiative petition process related to “An Initiative to cancel the Site C Dam project”; and further, that Elections BC be granted access to additional funds in the amount of $782,000 to administer the full verification process should the petition be returned with an adequate amount of signatures.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): The motion has been made. Is there a second? Okay, Tracy Redies.

Motion approved.

R. Leonard: I would like to move:

[That the Chair advise the Minister of Finance, as Chair of Treasury Board, of the recommendations adopted earlier today and that the Committee’s recommendations be formally recorded and included in its report on its annual review of statutory office budgets in 2018.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): The motion has been made. Second — Stephanie Cadieux.

Motion approved.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 9:14 a.m.