The committee met at 7:32 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): Good morning, everyone.

We’re gathered today on the unceded traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

We are continuing with our review of statutory officers, the updates and mid-year review. First up this morning is the Hon. Victoria Gray, Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

Financial and Operational
Updates from Statutory Officers

OFFICE OF THE CONFLICT
OF INTEREST COMMISSIONER

V. Gray: Good morning, Madam Chair, Madam Deputy Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the conflict-of-interest office. I’m here on my own. I had hoped that Carol Hoyer, our executive coordinator, could come, but there have been some urgent family issues for her, so it’s just me. She’s the one who knows the most about the financial stuff, so I hope the financial questions won’t be too difficult for me.

It’s very nice to see everybody again and really nice to see you in person. I know that I’ve met everybody virtually. I haven’t met anybody in person before, so this is surprising. I was thinking that I’ve been the commissioner just over two years, and every meeting with this committee has been virtual. I think one time, I had a horrible echo or something, and you couldn’t really hear me. Another time, I think you were having people in person, but I’d just had my knee replaced. Anyway, it’s very nice to be here and to see you in person.

It’s the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act which governs what I do. Apart from some minor amendments, it is has not changed for about 30 years, since 1992. There was a full review of the act about a decade ago, in 2012, and there were changes recommended, but none of the changes have been made, at least so far. As a result, the only changes in the work of my office have been dealing with things like the COVID-19 pandemic, technological change and challenges, and staffing changes.

I understand that this is an opportunity for me to give you financial and operational updates. There have not been any significant changes, financially or operationally, but I will bring you up to date on our work.

[7:35 a.m.]

We don’t have the final financial information from the Ministry of Finance for the fiscal year which ended a couple of months ago, March 31, but I’ll give you the provisional information that we have.

I thought I would go through four topics. First, I’ll give you a short reminder of the role of my office. Second, a quick review of the highlights of our 2020 annual report. Third, a discussion of our work and expenditures in 2021 and so far in 2022, and finally, a discussion of expectations and risks for the future.

First, a quick review of the role of my office. The conflict-of-interest office is B.C.’s smallest statutory office, but we have an important role. We seek to maintain the integrity of members and to enhance the public perception of the integrity of the decision of the Legislature and its various decision-making entities. Our role is described in the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, and the work focuses on three things.

First, helping MLAs to understand the conflict rules and assisting them to comply. We do that by giving advice. It’s usually in writing at some point. Sometimes we give it orally and confirm it in writing. It’s often in short time frames when issues arise. Second, we help MLAs navigate the financial disclosure requirements of the act. Third, we respond to complaints and requests for public opinions. These complaints and requests can come from MLAs or from members of the public. In addition, we work with comparable offices across Canada in coordinating the development of best practices.

Secondly, I’ll now turn to a quick summary of the highlights of our 2020 annual report. I’ll first summarize what’s in the annual report. That is for the period which ended about 18 months ago, and that’s because of the lag of getting the financial information. Our 2020 to 2021 budget was about $735,000. We were under budget in 2020-2021 by about $100,000, which is about 16 percent. That was primarily because we did not spend as much as anticipated in travel expenses and professional fees.

As a result of the COVID pandemic, we shifted in 2020 to working primarily from our homes rather than from our Menzies Street offices. In 2020, I met with only 36 of the MLAs, and that’s because the election was called when I was in the process of having the annual meetings. Those meetings in 2020 proceeded mostly virtually. About two-thirds were virtual, and the other one-third, 12 meetings, were in person.

During the period of the election, we did not provide opinions to MLAs. The reason for that is that they cease to be MLAs when the Legislature is in election mode. So we weren’t busy responding to requests for opinions. We used that period to update several of the bulletins we provide to MLAs with some general advice.

Despite the election, over all of 2020, we had 76 requests for advice, which is about the historical annual average. In 2020, in the annual report, our office received 12 requests for my opinion pursuant to section 19. Most of those requests were from the public and outside my jurisdiction. An example is complaints about senior staff rather than MLAs. There were no inquiries in 2020.

Now I’ll turn to 2021 and so far in 2022. Our budget of about $750,000 annually remains the smallest of all the statutory officers. When I spoke to this committee in November, I reported that as of the end of the second quarter, being September 30, 2021, we expected to be about $95,000 under budget for the year. The actuals for the ’21-22 fiscal year were $615,508, which put us about $122,500 under budget. The difference was largely accounted for in the lack of travel, retirement of a staff member with a period of reduced staff, and no major inquires or contracts.

[7:40 a.m.]

As at the end of December 2021, we had received 137 requests for advice. Many of these come directly from MLAs, but sometimes they come from constituency assistants or caucus chairs. Most of the advice is confirmed in writing. The total in 2021 of 137 was almost double the 76 in all of 2020.

I’m pleased that MLAs are being proactive in seeking advice. I attribute that increase, that doubling, for 2020 to the significant number of new MLAs in 2021 — there were 26 new MLAs — and to a culture of seeking advice. As at the beginning of May 2022, we’d received 31 requests for opinions from MLAs and their staff, and that puts us on track for about 90 requests in this calendar year, 2022, being at about the historical average. So a big bump of requests last year with a lot of new MLAs, coming back to a more normal year this year.

I completed the annual meetings with each of the 86 MLAs this year. The reason that there were only 86 and not 87 was that Andrew Wilkinson, QC, had resigned, so I didn’t meet with him. I will be meeting later this year with the newest MLA, Kevin Falcon, and any other MLAs that are elected in by-elections. Only two or three of the meetings this year were in person, so the balance were virtual.

We had a staff change in 2021. There are four people who work in my office. Two people work full-time — the executive coordinator, Carol, and our legal officer, Alyne Mochan. One person works 75 percent of full-time — that’s me; and one person works 60 percent of full-time, and that’s our administrative assistant, Angela.

Amber Derricourt, who was our administrative assistant for about nine years, retired at the end of September 2021. She was a delightful co-worker. We were sorry to see her go but happy for her to move to this new chapter in her life. We hired Angela Koutougos as our new administrative assistant, initially on a contract basis. Angela has been a terrific addition to our team. Effective April 11, 2022, she’s been hired as an employee.

We normally attend conferences involving others who do similar work to keep abreast of developments and best practices. In 2021 and early 2022, all the conferences proceeded virtually so we didn’t incur related travel expenses.

The 2022 annual conference of the Canadian Conflict of Interest Network is scheduled to proceed in Yellowknife this upcoming September, and we will incur travel costs for attending that. This group consists of the commissioners and similar officers from all the Canadian provinces and territories and for the federal parliament and Senate. We have a chance to discuss cases, learn about developments across the country, discuss best practices, and so on.

Lastly, I turn to expectations and risks for the future. My expectation is that there will be little or no change to our budget or our work generally. In ’21 and early 2022, we worked to improve the forms which MLAs must send us so that they work more easily with the Microsoft 365 environment. As I said, almost all my meetings in 2022 with MLAs have proceeded virtually. I expect that in the future many MLAs will prefer to meet with me virtually because of the ease of scheduling but that some of them will be in person — more than the two or three this year.

I expect that the conferences which interest us will proceed in person from this point forward, and that as a result, we’ll incur travel expenses related to that. I anticipate that at some point in the future we will be consulting extensively with the Ministry of the Attorney General and the legislative committee to update the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act either in accordance with the legislative review in 2012 or for a new legislative review.

As always, the big, unpredictable risk is that of an investigation and inquiry which requires my office to retain outside legal counsel. So far, in the two years I’ve been commissioner, none of the complaints I’ve received have warranted an investigation and inquiry. Looking historically, the office has had about one a year. I hope that the increase in MLAs seeking opinions in advance will reduce or eliminate the need for an investigation and inquiry.

This committee asked me previously how much money my office has spent on investigations, inquiries and reports. I explained that some matters can be handled by my office.

[7:45 a.m.]

A good example is the report regarding now Minister Kahlon relating to his father’s taxi licence. My office did not incur any outside expenses for that report.

We checked the records regarding two previous matters where the expenses ranged from about $38,000 to about $440,000. One was initiated by Democracy Watch. Democracy Watch is the name of the outfit. It involved then Premier Christy Clark and proceeded to hearings in the B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Then Commissioner Fraser required outside legal counsel to handle the court proceedings. The cost in 2017 was about $38,000.

A much more expensive matter related to then Premier Glen Clark. It proceeded to hearings before then Commissioner Oliver. He incurred costs for legal counsel and court reporters. The total incurred over about two years, 2000 and 2001, was about $440,000.

In short, it’s very difficult to predict how much an investigation and inquiry will cost. It depends on the nature of the complaint and what must be investigated. Whether there are related court hearings is also a factor, although the results of the recent court hearings have been to discourage any challenge of my discretion as a commissioner. It’s less likely that someone would go to court, because we now have precedents that make it even less likely that they can succeed.

In conclusion, it’s been my honour to serve as Commissioner for over two years, since January 6, 2020. It’s been my delight to work with the staff of the office. They’re experienced, professional, good-natured, cooperative, creative and fun.

Thank you for your attention, and I’ll try to answer any questions you might have.

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

Questions from the committee.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Commissioner. I really appreciate that.

I’m curious, because we’ve had several statutory officers talk about reviews of their acts, and then recommendations that were made for changes that were then not moved forward on under either government. Is there something, in 2012…? That is actually quite a long time ago, so the world has probably changed substantively since then. Anything that would help you do your job better or would be more effective that you really would like to prioritize in making changes?

V. Gray: I would say no. The difference between B.C. and some of the other jurisdictions is that I have quite a narrow mandate. I only deal with conflicts of interest involving members. In some jurisdictions, they also deal with senior bureaucrats, so that naturally expands the work. The more recent legislations will expand what is a conflict of interest.

I guess the best example…. It’s a bit early, I’m afraid, for me to think of this example. We have a fairly narrow definition of conflict of interest. I mean, I can give you some examples.

For example, there was a territorial member in, I think, the Northwest Territories who was recently dismissed from the Legislature there. He had been on the forefront of the COVID stuff in that jurisdiction, and he’d kind of been the spokesperson and telling everybody they need to comply. He himself breached the COVID protocols there by a day or two days. I think it was 14 days he was supposed to isolate, and after 12 or 13 days, he started going to some places. Unfortunately, people caught COVID. He did get COVID, and other people caught COVID.

But, perhaps worse, he lied about it — lied to the health authorities, lied about the timing. And the health authorities would have done some contact tracing. They didn’t do it, because he lied about how long he’d been away. So he was dismissed.

That was under legislation that said that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner or the Ethics Commissioner — I’m not sure of the name in that jurisdiction — could look at any conduct that was inappropriate for a member. I am limited to looking at conflicts between your private interests and something.

[7:50 a.m.]

I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it, but I don’t think I could have been involved in an inquiry about that. I suppose, in some jurisdictions, you might think it was appropriate to have MLAs decide what’s conduct that’s unprofessional for MLAs. On the other hand, you might worry that that gets to partisan. You might want an independent person. So there are ways. Most of the changes, I think, would be to expand the jurisdiction.

There are some definition changes, which I think might be appropriate. One which is troubling for me — it doesn’t make my work harder, but it’s troubling for me — is the definition of spouse.

Members, as you know, have to report income of their spouses. If you’re common-law spouses, you would only fall in the definition if you’re living together. But if you’re a married spouse, you still have to report the income unless there’s been a divorce or a court order about the separation or a written agreement about the separation. That can be very awkward for members, because if they’re married and then they become estranged, they’re still expected to report. Their spouse may not feel like cooperating and signing an agreement.

I can tell you, through my experience as a judge, that often people will try to extract some kind of benefit. “If you want this and it’s going to help you, I want something in return.” So that’s certainly something I would recommend, but I can’t say that it’s going to make my work easier.

The best technology is probably what makes my work easier, and my staff are excellent. So the changes I could see addressing aren’t really to ease my job. It’s more to potentially expand what the role is or clear up these things, like this definition.

M. Starchuk: Thank you, Commissioner. Your question is right here. Right there. I’m not kidding you. “Update the legislative act. Meet with the AAG. What changes do you expect?”

On that note, because we are in the process of looking at legislative changes to consumer protection, how much of what you’re looking for is actually because of the way we did do business differently, like through electronic means? Do you have to change what’s inside of the act because you do now have virtual meetings, because you do get people to sign something electronically and send it your way? How much of that is just due to technology?

V. Gray: I mean, as a commissioner, I get to interpret the legislation, and it’s binding. I concluded, in the COVID era, that I could have the meetings virtually, and I could do the signing. I mean, I suppose I might address a clean-up method of dealing with that, but I’ve just gone ahead and interpreted what I think was appropriate for the technological and pandemic world. I wouldn’t see…. I don’t think there’s a need for legislative change for that.

Most of the complaints we get from the public come by email — occasionally by telephone. But, pretty much, people are through email. I have thought about accessibility. We don’t have facility in other languages, but we haven’t been getting complaints in languages other than English.

I think there are a lot of people who think: “Oh, Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I’ll contact her. I’m unhappy with government.” But people have a very funny concept of a conflict of interest. It really is a conflict between what I want and what’s going on, sometimes.

J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions?

R. Merrifield: If there was an expansion of the role, let’s say to other bureaucrats or just to fall in line with other jurisdictions across Canada, what would be the difference in the budget that would be required? Is there an idea of what that order of magnitude would be?

[7:55 a.m.]

V. Gray: Well, I think it would be significant depending on what the change would be. I would probably look for guidance from some other jurisdictions. I think it would be at least double. If I were to deal with senior bureaucrats, I think there would be more…. I do get complaints about senior bureaucrats that I say I have no jurisdiction to deal with, and I think if the public thought that was something I could deal with, they would come to me.

My impression is that Ontario…. It’s been a while since I’ve really looked at the extent of its mandate, but I think that it includes senior bureaucrats. I think they have dozens of people in the office, compared to my four. I think it would be significant, but I’d have to look at the possible legislative change and the people.

R. Merrifield: Just thinking about a couple of the headlines that transpired, whether it was the head of PHSA and the $5 million of PPE that was never received, coming from a Quebec company, and he had just arrived from Quebec…. Thinking about what your role is and how it’s defined, I think there could be an expansion of that role to senior-level bureaucrats, in a protection of the institution as a whole.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): As I took Mike’s question, Renee kind of took mine. Just to tag onto that though…. We’re not asking you the financials here. See how easy it is for you today. Who does have that oversight of bureaucrats and senior bureaucrats right now? Who is the watchdog in terms of potential conflict?

V. Gray: I thought that there were public service conflict-of-interest guidelines, and how it’s implemented for each group…. I don’t know whether it’s the ministerial responsibility or…. I haven’t looked at that.

B. Bailey: My question is really just sort of personal curiosity, so I apologize if it’s not a more directed question. When you compare the role of your office to other offices that have expanded jurisdiction, I’m curious about not as much conflict but as misbehaviour. Some of the really bizarre behaviour we’ve seen from elected officials online, and inappropriate, bizarre — sometimes allegedly accidental, and other times you wonder if they’re mental health concerns. But it really erodes public trust, I think.

If an incident like that were to occur in a different jurisdiction, does that fall under a commissioner’s role because of the erosion of public trust, or is that something that’s handled entirely outside of that role? I guess I’m considering, if your role were expanded, would that type of behaviour fall into it?

V. Gray: Two examples come to mind, both involving senators. One was Senator Meredith. There were two reports about him. One, he entered into a relationship with a woman. He met her when she was 16 and he was 48. They had sex when she was 18. He was married and a pastor. Anyway, there was an inquiry about that, and he was chastised by the…. That was handled by the Ethics Commissioner. It was a mandate that I think was: “Was this conduct unbecoming of a senator?”

Then there was a second inquiry that was because there was a finding in a privileged Senate committee that there was a toxic work environment and that he’d been sexually harassing staff, just generally harassing them. He resigned before that second report went in.

Again, I don’t think I would have the mandate to investigate sexual impropriety or an inappropriate relationship under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, but it was investigated under the Senate’s comparable act.

One which I think of with the online was Sen. Lynn Beyak. She republished some things. It was dealing with residential schools. I haven’t looked at it for a while, but I mean, the general flavour was for her to kind of say…. I think she made a speech in the Senate, saying there were some good things about residential schools, but then on her website, she published a lot of things.

[8:00 a.m.]

There was an initial investigation, and she was told to take some kind of training, and then there was a problem with the training. The trainer said that she wouldn’t show up, and she said that she thought the trainer was biased against her. This went on and on. I think she ended up resigning. I don’t think there was a final decision. I think that was her decision.

Again, that was the conclusion of my counterpart for the Senate, that publishing racist material was conduct unbecoming a senator. I can’t remember what the…. There’s often a difference between, “Is there a finding that this is inappropriate,” and then: “What do we do about it?” As I say, with her, this was the finding: “This is inappropriate, but let’s try to give her some education. Let’s see if we can’t train her about how to deal with that.” It was an interesting case, if you followed it at all.

Again, having been a lawyer, it was a self-governing profession where discipline matters were made by a panel that included members of the public but was heavily lawyer, the concept being that lawyers understand what the dynamics are and are better to investigate that.

I haven’t been a politician. I try to be sensitive to what the pressures are on politicians, but am I the right kind of person to be making a decision about whether behaviour is appropriate? Your life is so partisan in so many ways that it may be that an independent person is a better choice, as long as there are certain kinds of inputs.

Short answer: I don’t think I could investigate those things with my mandate. If you found there was a colleague who was thought to be misbehaving with their staff, I’m not sure. I assume there’s some kind of internal processes that could come into play that wouldn’t involve me at this stage.

B. Bailey: Thank you very much for that answer. I just am trying to understand the comparisons between British Columbia’s role that you have and what other jurisdictions might do in an expanded role. If I understand it correctly — and please let me know if this is right — in some jurisdictions, the ethics commissioner would consider much broader ethical considerations, not just the specific conflict of interest.

It sounds to my untrained ear like we’ve chosen one particular area of ethics to really focus on, conflict of interest, but there are other areas of ethics that fall outside your jurisdiction. Were that expanded, it would be more of an ethics commissioner kind of role rather than specific to conflict of interest. Am I understanding that correctly?

V. Gray: Absolutely. I think some of it is historic. B.C. and Ontario were the first two jurisdictions to have conflict-of-interest legislation. I think B.C. was a bit of leader and was on the vanguard. But things have changed. There are things that are questions of ethics that are beyond, strictly speaking, conflicts of interest. I think you have that absolutely right.

I was just thinking of my comment about the size of the Ontario operation. I think that in addition, they somehow monitor all the lobbyist spending. They may even monitor MLA travel expenses and things like that. It’s quite a different setup. I don’t particularly want to monitor MLA travel expenses, you know? I think that takes a bit of time in Ontario, and people.

J. Routledge (Chair): I’m not seeing any more questions, so with that, Victoria, I’d like to thank you for coming and engaging with us about your work and some of our questions and speculation. Please pass on to Carol our regards. Hope that her family situation is okay.

Your presentation was very clear, very thorough. I think your ongoing role in terms of advising us before we get ourselves into trouble is really, really important. I think this discussion about, potentially, an evolving role is fascinating, and I’m sure that many of us will want to continue that discussion.

V. Gray: A pleasure to see everybody. Thanks very much.

J. Routledge (Chair): We’ll take a brief recess.

The committee recessed from 8:05 a.m. to 8:11 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): I’ll reconvene the meeting.

Our next presentation will be from Maureen Baird, the Merit Commissioner. I see that with her is Dave Van Swieten.

Over to you.

OFFICE OF THE MERIT COMMISSIONER

M. Baird: Good morning, Chair, Deputy Chair, members of the committee. Thank you very much to the committee for giving me the opportunity to come before you this morning and talk about the important work of my office.

I acknowledge, with respect, that we’re meeting on the traditional territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people and the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. Our office respectfully acknowledges that our work extends across the homelands of the Indigenous peoples within what we now call British Columbia.

You’ve already noticed that I’m joined today by Mr. Van Swieten, with whom you’re all well acquainted.

This committee’s work in reviewing and supporting my work and that of other independent statutory officers represents an important link to legislators as we discharge our statutory responsibilities — in my case, the oversight of the fairness of hiring and just cause dismissal processes in the B.C. Public Service, which in turn strengthens equality and professionalism in the public service.

These spring appearances provide an opportunity to enhance the committee’s understanding and appreciation of our work that informs your consideration in the fall of each year for our service plan and budget presentations.

In answer to one of the specific questions that you asked us to address at this meeting, I can advise that I am not making a supplementary budget request at this time.

I always begin these discussions by recognizing and highlighting the importance of the independence of the Office of the Merit Commissioner. It is as a result of this independence that we can achieve better accountability in our area of statutory mandate. The independence also enhances the value and the credibility of the information which we provide to the Legislature and to the public.

The Legislature that created the Office of the Merit Commissioner understood that a non-partisan, merit-based public service is a central attribute of any modern democratic state, which would not be able to function optimally without its presence. It created this office to oversee the application of the merit principle to appointments to and within the B.C. Public Service. That oversight role was extended in 2018 to include the monitoring of just cause dismissal processes to ensure that they were consistent with established government practices, standards and policies.

The principles which guide all of our work are fairness and impartiality. By way of context, there are currently approximately 40,000 people in the B.C. Public Service. The vast majority of appointments — approximately 90 percent — are within my jurisdiction. In the year of our 2021-22 audit, there were almost 8,000 permanent and long-term temporary appointments, all within the scope of the merit performance audit. There were also over 4,000 auxiliary and short-term temporary appointments made in the first half of the same fiscal year that are also within my jurisdiction, as they too must be based on the principles of merit.

[8:15 a.m.]

Since we met in November last year, the 2020-21 Merit Performance Audit has been published. The most objective basis for me to rate merit-based hiring is the result of our audits, which can be extrapolated to the general population of the same type of appointment made during the year.

In 2021, we found that 71 percent of appointments audited were the result of a merit-based process with no error. We determined that merit was not applied in 2 percent of the appointments audited. In these processes, there was an error with a known negative impact on the competition outcome.

The remaining 27 percent of the appointments were based on merit, but the audit found errors in the design or application of the process, which had mitigated or unknown impact on the competition outcome. There was no evidence of patronage in any appointment. In all but one audit, we found that the individuals whose appointments were selected for audit had the qualifications specified as required for the position.

It has been over ten years since our merit findings were greater than 70 percent of the audited appointments. These findings are in keeping with an overall positive trend we have observed over the last three audit cycles. Whether this was due to an unusual year or sample or if these improvements are indicative of permanent changes for the better will be determined by the next few audit cycles.

In 2021-22, I received 22 requests from unsuccessful employee applicants to complete a staffing review of a hiring process. Of these, I issued 18 review reports, including 15 which upheld the organization’s appointment decision and three in which I directed a reconsideration. The area of most frequent concern involved the design and application of the interviewing and testing stage. An overall staffing review report will be released in the near future.

With respect to my role of dismissal process review oversight, I’m pleased to advise that a formal agreement has now been established between the Deputy Attorney General and me, concerning the sharing of relevant information to the review. My report for 2020-21 was based on review of 19 dismissal review processes, which included all those files that became eligible since my oversight role commenced in 2018. This year there was a smaller number of reviews. My report will be included in my annual report, which will be released before the end of this month.

You will recall that my office is comprised of a small group of dedicated professionals. During my tenure, we have operated with four full-time and two part-time staff: a director of audit and review, a senior program manager, two part-time program managers, an analyst and a program administrative assistant. We also have six contractors who conduct audits of hiring processes year-round. These auditors work remotely, are paid on a contract basis and are paid per audit.

Now I want to turn from the general to the specific. We’ve recently had some staff turnover for the first time in several years and, certainly, for the first time during my tenure. I’m pleased to say that we have successfully recruited to these vacancies, and the new team members are learning their responsibilities and integrating into the office culture.

We’ve just completed a redesign of the Merit Commissioner’s website. This was a significant project engaging the entire office. A feature of the new website is its attention to accessibility, including plain-language wording.

You’ve asked that I address the status of returning to work in the workplace. My staff have been extraordinarily resilient during the pandemic. We are fortunate to have excellent IT systems and support to allow for a relatively seamless transition to remote work. Our office has always prided itself on flexibility in work arrangements, and there were a range of options used prior to the pandemic which have been continued. I am reviewing options which allow for as much flexibility as possible while ensuring that our work continues uninterrupted and at the same high quality.

Continuing with the theme of change and, in particular, IT change, our office will have its kickoff meeting tomorrow, for its transition to the new database management system using Resolve Software. There has already been considerable background work done with our office to facilitate this transition.

[8:20 a.m.]

In addition, our office has planned for continuity of the work of the office during this period, which will engage a number of our staff over the next few months. I expect to be able to report to you on progress in this area this fall.

I’m also pleased to report that even with this enhanced workload, my staff will be producing a special study this year on lessened qualifications. We have observed challenges with qualifications which are changed after a notice is posted. We anticipate publishing the results of the study by the middle of June 2022.

Before closing my comments, I wanted to share with you one last piece of information. Earlier this year, the Merit Protection Commission of Australia reached out to us to see if we were interested in a dialogue on issues that may be of common interest. The Australian Merit Protection Commissioner is the only other person of whom I’m aware who has such a title and such a role.

There are significant differences in the jurisdiction of our respective offices, but there are also areas of commonality. Our initial conversation was a positive experience, and our staff have scheduled a further virtual meeting. Indeed, yesterday I saw that two meetings have been scheduled: one for May and one for September. This brings me full circle to the issue of independence. One of the key differences in our respective organizations is the independence underpinning my work and that of my office.

Finally, before I close, I want once again to recognize my staff, whose professionalism, resilience and spirit, not to mention their good humour, have seen us through the challenges of the past two years.

That concludes my prepared comments. I’m happy to take any questions.

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

I see our first question is from Megan.

M. Dykeman: Thank you for the update. It’s always wonderful to see you.

In last budget, there was a capital amount approved for $208,000 for funding for the Case Tracker System. I was wondering how that’s going.

M. Baird: My office has been involved in preparatory work, but it won’t be until tomorrow that we do the kick-off for, really, the intense period of implementation. So we’re at early stages, and I expect the plan is that it will be up and running by the fall, by the next time I report to you.

M. Dykeman: That’s great. Fingers crossed that it all goes smoothly. It’s always that little bit of concern any time you’re making a change. But I’m sure it’s going to go smoothly, and I’m glad that you’re on the path to get that transferred over.

M. Baird: I expect it will go smoothly. The preparatory work has gone smoothly. We are the last of the independent offices at 947 Fort Street, so the other offices have had experiences that they have shared with us. I’m expecting that it will go smoothly but that it will be a considerable amount of work.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for the presentation.

I just want to clarify, because I wasn’t quite understanding at the very end, the comment made you about dealing with the Merit Protection Commissioner in Australia — the issue of independence. Is it that you have more independence or that they have?

M. Baird: Yes, I have more independence.

B. Stewart: You mentioned, at the start, Commissioner, about 40,000 people that fall under your kind of purview. Are those the ones that are in the PSA, the Public Service Agency? Is that where they are?

M. Baird: Yes.

B. Stewart: And of those, 90 percent are covered?

M. Baird: Yes.

B. Stewart: What’s the exclusion — the 10 percent that aren’t covered?

M. Baird: The exclusions? Well, there’s…. The staff of the Legislature are excluded. OICs are excluded. I think that those are really the main ones that are excluded.

B. Stewart: Maybe if I could just ask a follow-up, the public service…. That’s the government that we’re talking about — the 40,000. So that’s the only area of purview you have?

M. Baird: Yes.

[8:25 a.m.]

B. Stewart: You don’t look at any of the other public service employees, of which there are almost 500,000 in total.

M. Baird: Right. I don’t look at schools or hospitals, so it’s just the public service.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): This question may or may not be relevant, but I’ll ask it anyways. Do you think that there’ll be more merit issues or complaints as we move forward, simply because of the lack of employees who are available and the need for those doing the hiring to, perhaps, be more flexible in terms of the kind of experience that people are bringing to roles? Does that make it more difficult for you to actually make a determination on fair merit, or is that not relevant?

M. Baird: I think that these are…. Really, all I can do is speculate, because what we look at is the process. We haven’t noticed a rapid increase of any sort in terms of the number of staffing reviews that we’ve been asked to perform. It’s always possible that that will happen. But if the process is well designed and well implemented, then there usually is not a request for staffing.

K. Kirkpatrick (Deputy Chair): That makes sense. Yeah, as long as everyone is treated equally regardless of the outcome.

M. Baird: Exactly.

B. Stewart: Commissioner, you mentioned that in the cases you’d reviewed…. I think you mentioned that there were 22. Eighteen you reviewed — 15 were accepted, and three you’d asked for a review on. Do you report out on the outcome of those three that you’ve asked for a review on, in the sense of how they were resolved?

M. Baird: The direction that I can give as a result of a staffing review is that there be a reconsideration. But once I have ordered the reconsideration, that really is the end of my jurisdiction. I don’t have any jurisdiction over that reconsideration. So I don’t report out on what the outcome is, whether the reconsideration leaves the appointment where it was or makes a change. That is something that is past my jurisdiction, so I don’t report on that.

We sometimes know, because the deputy minister or the person who requested the staffing review will let us know. But there isn’t really a requirement that we be advised of the outcome of the reconsideration, and it isn’t something that we report on.

B. Stewart: How would you know, then, the metrics that you look at, the audit process, the complaint, etc.? How do you know that you’re doing a good job, in the sense of your issue for recommendation for reconsideration? How do you know that that’s working?

M. Baird: My job is to do a thorough review of the process by which the unsuccessful candidate was not appointed to the position. I report that to the deputy minister, including the errors that we detected in the process, and we order the reconsideration. Having ordered the reconsideration, my jurisdiction is spent.

So how the deputy minister conducts the reconsideration is for them. It is not something that I have any input into. What the outcome of that reconsideration is, is also outside of my jurisdiction. As I said, often we know the result, but we don’t always.

[8:30 a.m.]

My work essentially is done by recognizing that there were errors or flaws in the process, by drawing them to the deputy minister’s attention and by telling the deputy minister that there must be a reconsideration.

J. Routledge (Chair): Any other questions?

Well, Commissioner, it looks like you have answered all the questions very thoroughly. Thank you for your very clear, very succinct report and giving us a bit of an inside look at the concept of merit and how it’s working out in the provincial public service and reassuring us and the public that, by and large, appointments are meritorious.

We will take another brief recess and have a bit of a check in.

The committee recessed from 8:31 a.m. to 8:35 a.m.

[J. Routledge in the chair.]

J. Routledge (Chair): I think we’re ready to adjourn the meeting.

I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 8:35 a.m.