The committee met at 10:32 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Approval of Agenda and Minutes

Mr. Speaker: Let’s call the meeting to order.

You all received the agenda for the meeting today. Let’s approve the draft agenda that was circulated.

G. Begg: So moved.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Item 2 on your agenda, review and approval of the draft minutes of the May 27 meeting. Any changes to the minutes of May 27? None.

May I have the motion, then, to approve it?

S. Furstenau: So moved.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Item 3 is the update from the Clerk.

Clerk’s Update

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Good morning, Members. My update this morning will focus on a number of operational changes related to COVID-19 and our province’s recent move to step 3 of B.C.’s restart plan. One of the most exciting changes is that for the first time since March of 2020, we are able to welcome visitors back to the Parliament Buildings. Our indoor guided tour program resumed with small groups of visitors on July 2.

I’d like to commend the parliamentary education office team for the wonderful job that they did over the past year offering innovative, online learning opportunities. The team is now able to safely welcome visitors again to the building, and their gift shop is also open seven days a week. It’s a very positive milestone for everyone.

I also wanted to express appreciation to the parliamentary dining room team, who have recently resumed their original, pre-pandemic service hours, Monday through Friday. Like so many restaurants across the province, the team adapted quickly to changing health requirements, including the establishment of a curbside takeout service. While that takeout option continues, we are, again, very pleased to see the team able to resume full-service hours to the public and all dining room guests.

[10:35 a.m.]

One key measure that remains in place is our requirement to wear a mask within common areas on the precinct grounds. Current public health guidance recommends continuing to wear masks in indoor public spaces for anyone 12 years of age or older who has not yet been fully immunized. For the foreseeable future, masks continue to be required in communal indoor spaces for our employees and visitors, and we’ll continue to monitor public health advice and recommendations in this area.

I also wanted to express special thanks to the front-line efforts of our incredible legislative facilities services team, who ensured the health of all building occupants over the past 16 months by implementing immediate and extensive cleaning and safety protocols and minimizing the risk of transmission in our environment.

I’ll also acknowledge and extend a special appreciation, as well, to the innovative Hansard Services team who, just yesterday, celebrated the end of the spring sitting period. Our ability to quickly adapt to hybrid and remote participation in the House and committee proceedings relied so much on their ingenuity and dedication.

Then in closing, I’ll just simply acknowledge all staff of the assembly and how innovative, adaptive and dedicated each and every colleague was during the pandemic to support our institution during unprecedented times. Indeed, the past few years have resulted in so many organizational changes for staff. I wanted to also take this opportunity to thank each of them and to encourage them to seek opportunities this summer for a well-deserved rest and renewal, knowing that they have served the institution so well during a challenging time.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Any discussion or questions, comments? None.

Okay. Let’s move on to item 4, then, on our agenda, respectful workplace policy.

Kate, please take us through that.

Respectful Workplace Policy

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): In the meeting materials today, there are three distinct supporting briefing notes with respect to the respectful workplace policy, as well as a copy of the policy. As we go through the materials, I’ll help draw the committee’s attention to the supporting documents.

In order to provide some background and some context for these recommendations, I’ll provide a brief overview. On July 3, 2019, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee adopted, in principle, a respectful workplace policy. To ensure that we could sustain confidence and trust in the policy and its associated processes, the committee determined that the policy would be best overseen by an individual independent of the Legislative Assembly.

As such, the committee established a working group to oversee the selection of an external contractor to review, implement and operationalize the policy. Following a competitive bidding process, DPRA Canada was selected as the successful proponent to undertake this initial work. With the guidance of DPRA and in consultation with caucuses, the working group thoroughly reviewed the policy and considered a number of substantive changes with the view of clarifying and strengthening the policy.

Following the general election in 2020, a new iteration of the working group with renewed membership — including Sonia, Michele and Peter — was established in December of 2020 to continue this work. With guidance from the working group, the policy was further refined, and on June 2, working group members adopted a resolution to recommend the revised policy to your committee for approval.

If approved today, the policy is immediately applicable to members, caucus staff and Legislative Assembly staff. Legislative Assembly staff will then begin working with other employment groups on the precinct grounds under the policy, such as staff in ministerial offices, who may be employees of the public service. It’s our intention to work with your direction to develop MOUs for these other employee groups.

Should the policy be adopted, DPRA Canada will continue to work on fully operationalizing the independent respectful workplace office, including finalization of procedures, information, materials and delivering training on the policy.

[10:40 a.m.]

I’ll just say a word about the objectives of the policy. The intent of the policy, as members may know, is to establish a shared and trusted process for addressing workplace issues amongst different groups that work on the Legislative Assembly precinct, with a view to ensuring and maintaining a respectful workplace environment.

While each caucus and the Legislative Assembly administration have their own workplace conduct guidelines and policies, this overarching policy provides a mutual framework that also ensures a shared understanding of acceptable and appropriate behaviour with respect to our interactions with each other and also an independent support process to fairly resolve issues that may arise between participants of the various groups.

The policy establishes an independent respectful workplace office that will provide training to all participants and offer support through education, advice, coaching and mediation. Should a formal complaint arise, the independent respectful workplace policy will investigate complaints promptly and impartially.

That brings us to the first recommendation brought forward for your consideration. As I mentioned, if the respectful workplace policy were to be approved and adopted by your committee today, it will replace the existing version of the policy that was adopted in principle in July of 2019.

I certainly welcome any discussion with respect to the recommendation that has been brought forward by the working group. That recommendation would require a mover of the motion. The motion is that the revised respectful workplace policy be adopted as presented.

I’ll leave the discussion in your hands, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Before we put the motion up on the screen, any comments, any questions for Kate?

Okay. Let’s deal with one motion first….

Sorry, Peter.

P. Milobar: I know it’s a bit of a minor edit, and I didn’t see it all through the committee stage. So I do apologize. We do reference the NDP’s respectful workplace. I know we have one. I’m pretty sure the Greens have one. Can we just add in the actual names of the caucuses that have it, either all in or not in — as a minor edit, I would suggest.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): We would be happy to add the B.C. Liberal caucus to the list. We have a list there on page 1 of the policy, I think, that Peter is referring to, and we would be happy to make that amendment with the support of the committee.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, absolutely.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): May I ask, Sonia, as well, for your caucus?

S. Furstenau: Yes, please. Thank you.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: So those are the friendly amendments. I think we can keep them as suggested. We don’t need any further motion to amend the existing thing.

If there are no objections, then we will just have the motion on the screen, which reads that the revised respectful workplace policy be adopted as amended with an effective date of — today’s date?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

G. Begg: Can I just speak before we leave the discussion stage?

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, Garry.

G. Begg: Is this a document that is taken from another source? Is this an original document, or is it one that is in effect elsewhere and has been cribbed or copied?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): If I understand your question, Garry, this is a policy that is unique to the Legislative Assembly, which has been developed over a period of time. Is that…?

G. Begg: It’s the wording that I’m interested in. Is it unique? Is it a unique document?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Yes, it is. It is reflective of this unique workplace environment, and the intent of the policy as noted is to apply to so many distinct work groups within the environment. So it is very much a one-of-a-kind policy that has been tailored to meet those objectives.

G. Begg: Page 10, subsection 5, says that all participants are required to cooperate during investigations. Is that an aspirational statement, or is there a compellability factor that’s outlined elsewhere?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): The policy has been developed, I know, with the good faith and input of all caucuses and all policy participants. In adopting this policy, it does become an expectation for all those who fall under the policy, including members and staff.

[10:45 a.m.]

G. Begg: It’s aspirational, and there is no compellability. Is that right?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I would agree with that interpretation. I’m not sure if my good colleagues…. Jennifer Arril is also here at the meeting. She has been instrumental in assisting us with the development of the policy, and Suzie. But yes, the policy does not provide for any explicit remedies should there not be cooperation with the investigation.

Mr. Speaker: Garry, are you suggesting that instead of reading it out as, “Participants are required,” it should say: “All participants are expected”? Is that what you’re trying to get at?

G. Begg: No. I’m just saying that the wording is troublesome. There is no definition of “cooperation” in the definitions section. “Cooperation” or “to cooperate” is, obviously, a subjective decision. I don’t think anything turns on it, except that we should be as precise and careful in wording to forestall any future problems as we can be.

M. Babchuk: Just for members of LAMC, and especially through the work that I was doing with Roseanne and our legal team, this wording was all looked at and vetted, and though aspirational, it is also expectational. It was okayed through all of the legal piece that we have in regards to what this looks like.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I’ll just note that with respect to the authority of your committee to adopt this policy or any other policy within our institutional environment, there are prescribed specific powers and duties under the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act that touch, as I said, not just on matters of administration and finance but also for the conduct of Members of the Legislative Assembly. In the context of section 3 of the act, this committee indeed has the authority to adopt such a policy on behalf of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Garry, your hand is still up. Are you…?

G. Begg: My question has been answered. Thank you.

S. Furstenau: Mr. Speaker, I’d be delighted to move the motion that the revised respectful workplace policy be adopted as presented.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Sorry, the policy was amended. So I just need you to say “as amended.”

S. Furstenau: As amended.

Motion approved.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you. Just for the clarification of members, we did note the preference to state the individual caucuses, who, I understand, all have applicable policies in this area. The language on page 1, on closer examination, did note: “Applicable policies within any recognized caucuses.” Pursuant to the direction provided by the committee, we’ll explicitly state, for clarity, the name of each caucus.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. What’s the next motion?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): The next recommendation that we are seeking your support on is…. The second recommendation is, for the consideration of the committee, to consider and approve a list of external investigators. You will see that supporting documentation in the meeting materials today.

[10:50 a.m.]

While it is envisioned and certainly we hope that most investigations will be able to be undertaken by the independent respectful workplace office, if required, the policy also provides for a list of external investigators to be established as well.

Under section 4.03 of the respectful workplace policy, there is a provision requiring this committee to approve a list of external investigators. The list provides the option for the independent respectful workplace office or a complainant or respondent to seek any additional support which may be required to support them during the investigation of any serious, complex or sensitive complaints. The individuals and organizations that have been identified on this list are not engaged in any way until such a time that a request is made under the policy.

This particular list of external investigators was recommended by our Legislative Assembly human resources team for consideration by the committee today. The proposed list of external investigators includes independent legal counsel and conflict resolution experts who have provided investigative or resolution services to the Legislative Assembly or other public bodies and were selected on a basis of their experience and expertise in this area of work.

Members are invited to look at the listing on appendix 1 of that briefing note at this time. We’re pleased to answer any questions or take direction from the committee.

Mr. Speaker: Kate, on hiring these external investigators, I want to make sure that they also reflect diversity. Those people who will be investigating these issues may be required to investigate. So is that taken care of?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): That’s an important observation, Mr. Speaker. I do know that Roper Greyell is a large and diverse organization with a variety of individuals a part of that firm. We are pleased to take any advice from members of the committee if there are other potential firms that you think would be appropriate to consider as an amendment to this list at a future time.

The purpose of this initial list was to ensure that we had the approval of the committee to have some external investigators identified and available, should it be required. We’re certainly happy to have a further look, and additional names are very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Maybe some wording can be added to the motion — that we say, “as adopted, as presented today,” reflecting diversity to that extent. Something like that needs to be, I think, explicit.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): If I may, perhaps in anticipation of the next recommendation to be considered by the committee, the working group is going to be undertaking a new procurement process with respect to the continuation of contracted services under the policy. It could well be a direction given to the working group to ensure that diversity is a key element, that the capacity to provide services from a diversity perspective is incorporated into the contractual arrangement as well as any additional external investigators that the new contracted service provider may wish to bring forward and recommend.

We could deal with it at that stage if you like, Mr. Speaker, or we could entertain an amendment at this time. I’m in the hands of the committee.

Mr. Speaker: Any members, any comments?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I think Michele has her hand up, Mr. Speaker.

M. Babchuk: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Kate.

I agree with Mr. Speaker. I don’t see a lot of diversity or representation for visible minorities through these firms at this particular point, but I don’t have any answers. I would suggest that we take this back to the committee with recommendations to move forward with the next contractual piece, making sure that that is a direction from the [audio interrupted].

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments? All right, then.

Kate, maybe you can guide us. Do we need to, then, table it, this motion, until such time, or can we make that amendment now to reflect that direction that we are talking about?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I would suggest that it would be very helpful for the committee to ensure that we have [audio interrupted].

[10:55 a.m.]

Then we know, at minimum, that we will have these four, should they be required. Given that there is a need to ensure additional names be brought forward — that that task be provided to the working group and to staff to ensure an amendment, additional names be brought forward at the first opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Does everybody agree with it?

All right. Let’s have that motion, then, on the screen.

Artour, please.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): I’m just making one modification to reflect that.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): We can certainly [audio interrupted] ensure that we have that information to committee members as soon as possible.

Thank you, Artour.

Mr. Speaker: There we go. It reads: “I move that pursuant to section 4.03 of the respectful workplace policy, the list of external investigators be adopted, as presented, on an interim basis, and that a further review of external investigators be undertaken to reflect diversity and that that list be brought forward to the committee at the earliest opportunity.”

Somebody to move?

M. Babchuk: So moved.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Kate.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you, Members.

The third recommendation for consideration today is the selection of a contractor for the continued operation of the independent respectful workplace office. As I mentioned earlier, the independent respectful workplace office is currently operated by our external contractor, DPRA Canada. This contractor was selected by the committee’s working group through an RFP process and entered into a general services agreement with the Legislative Assembly in spring of 2020. The agreement has already been extended once previously, and it is now set to end on November 4, 2021.

Under the existing contract, the role of the contractor is to review the respectful workplace policy, establish the framework for an independent office, and provide initial education and training. With input from the working group, the contractor has indeed prepared the framework and procedures for the office, the initial educational content and a detailed training proposal. To fulfil contract deliverables, the contractor will also be able to provide training on the policy, before the conclusion of the contract this fall. However, as the existing contract is set to expire on November 4, a new services agreement is required for the continued operation of the office.

The activities for the continued operation of the office include education, advice, mediation, informal resolution services, annual reviews of the policy and investigations of complaints, if necessary. The roles and responsibilities of the independent office are outlined in detail in section 2.03 of your policy.

The Legislative Assembly Management Committee may wish to have the working group oversee the selection of the external contractor for the continued operation of the office after November 4. The process of selecting an external contractor could include a competitive bidding opportunity, and once the working group has selected a contractor, the working group will report out on that outcome to your committee.

We hope that that process can begin as soon as possible, given the timelines that lie ahead. I know that Jennifer and her colleagues are already anticipating the requirements for that procurement process, so special thanks to Jennifer and the team.

As well, I’ll note that regular ongoing reporting from the independent respectful workplace office will occur through the subcommittee on administration and operations as required by the policy, which brings us to the final recommendation on this topic. If it is the wish of the committee to have the working group oversee the selection of an external contractor for continued operation of the office, a motion to that effect has been included in meeting materials.

[11:00 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Thanks, Kate.

Any comments?

Okay, this is the motion.

Sorry, Peter. Did you have your hand up?

P. Milobar: Maybe I should have asked this before it got to the policy, but it ties in, I think, a bit with contractor training. In the policy, there’s mandatory training. I can’t recall that there’s an actual timeline on that. Will this hamper that mandatory training?

Is there a mandatory deadline for caucuses to have the mandatory training, or is it going to be the “we’ll get to it when we get to it” plan? Otherwise, without the training, the document starts to become a little toothless.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): No, you’re quite correct, Peter. There is a requirement for training. The office has been preparing a proposed training framework, which I know that the working group has been briefed on. The goal is to have all training complete for all members and employees, under the policy, by the November 4 deadline.

The next steps after today’s meeting will be to reach out to caucus executives in the days ahead to organize the specific timelines and scheduling for training. As discussed with the working group at the last meeting, we are anticipating full-day, in-person sessions, small groups of 25 to 30 individuals, to facilitate in-depth learning opportunities. There’ll be separate training provisions set up for the caucuses, and training specific to management responsibilities as well.

Mr. Speaker: Any other questions or comments?

M. Babchuk: I just have a question in regard to this. When we’re talking about the working group doing this, is this overseeing the selection actually including the posting of that competitive process as well? Does the last motion that included the diversity piece automatically transfer over, or do we need an amendment to this as well? I’m just looking for clarification.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you so much, Michele. I think it’s clearly understood, in our support of the working group, that we will include a recognition of the importance of diversity within the capacity of any contractor who’s successfully awarded the contract to continue the services of the office.

As was the case in the last parliament with the previous working group, we would certainly provide a final draft copy of the RFP and any contract requirements to the working group and provide you with an overview of any respondents and ensure that you have an opportunity to interview, for example, top respondents and to ensure that you, the working group members, are aware of and in support of the award of any outcome from that process.

M. Babchuk: Thank you for the clarification.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I’ll also mention, for the information of members that we recognize that new staff will come into the environment at any point in time. While the existing contractors will provide training services through to November 4 with the target to complete training for all current members and staff on a go-forward basis, the external contractor so selected by the new procurement process will also have a requirement to continue training services.

Mr. Speaker: Thanks, Kate.

Okay, here is the motion: that the working group on the respectful workplace policy will oversee the selection of an external contractor to provide the services of the independent respectful workplace office as set out in the respectful workplace policy.

M. Babchuk: So moved.

Mr. Speaker: It has been moved and seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The next item on our agenda is No. 5, FTE request.

Suzie, can you please take the committee through it?

FTE Request

S. Seo (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Members.

As set out in the briefing note that was included in your meeting materials, the Office of the Clerk is seeking your approval for the creation of one new, full-time-equivalent legal counsel position, to be filled in the current fiscal year, to support the delivery of comprehensive legal advice and services to the Legislative Assembly.

[11:05 a.m.]

The legal team at the Legislative Assembly currently consists of one position, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel position that I hold, which was made permanent on April 30, 2020. The briefing note lists in summary form the responsibilities and duties that I carry out. The proposed legal counsel position would generally support me in my various areas of responsibility, but their primary focus would be on the corporate, legal and good governance needs of the Legislative Assembly administration.

The ideal candidate for the position would have three to five years of experience as a lawyer. A detailed job description has been developed and is currently being reviewed by human resources for classification purposes. As the hiring manager, if your decision is favourable to this request, I will work with my colleagues in HR to ensure that overall compensation will be competitive in the current marketplace while ensuring prudent use of Legislative Assembly resources and appropriate relativity in terms of the overall compensation with other positions within the administration. The desired start date is September 2021.

Historical budget trends suggest that this unplanned cost may be offset within the overall Legislative Assembly budget. However, given other budget pressures, this cannot be guaranteed at this time, as it is too early in the fiscal year. More analysis on the organization’s forecast will be required to provide any such assurances with greater certainty. I anticipate that the assembly administration will be in a position to provide greater certainty, if you wish, at the conclusion of the second quarter.

In support of this request, a number of risk considerations are set out in the briefing note. In summary form, I will state now that the volume of work and often time-sensitive nature of legal services necessitates a second legal counsel to support me and to share the workload in support of all of you — members in the chamber and in committee — and in support of the administration with respect to the various operational requirements and timelines that are often tied to the requests that I receive.

Second, adding a second legal counsel position to the legal team here would contribute to further building in-house corporate knowledge and capacity as well as, I respectfully submit, reducing the historical reliance on external counsel for legal services that are regular and core to the functioning of the assembly and its administration, which, in my view, would result in both short-term and long-term savings.

Lastly, the addition of the second counsel would also address the complete lack of operational redundancy that currently exists with respect to the responsibilities that I hold as a practising lawyer. This is an organizational and service-delivery risk. Closing the gap in the lack of operational redundancy would also contribute to succession planning, with a long-term view in the best interests of this organization that I’m proud to serve.

That concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions that committee members may have.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions for Suzie? Any comments?

B. D’Eith: Thank you very much. I’m just curious. One would imagine, given the volume of external legal that we’ve had over the last few years…. Do you see there being significant savings to the Legislature by having in-house counsel in this regard?

S. Seo (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel): Yes. I do. However, some of the legal expenses that have recently been incurred are in relation to particular legal matters that have come up and that were unanticipated. Therefore, it is difficult for me to say that by having an in-house counsel, we will definitely save in this year or in the coming years.

However, there is quite a bit of work that has been done externally to date, as I mentioned previously, that relate to the core day-to-day operations of the assembly administration. I believe that…. The intention behind the second position request is for that individual to be able to assume those legal services so that we don’t have to go outside.

Mr. D’Eith, I’m happy to get into greater detail, but I would ask the Chair that I be able to do so in camera in order to…. I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to get into the details of the matter or who was involved, in the current public setting. But I’m happy to do so, perhaps later on at the end of this meeting.

[11:10 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: That’s understandable. Thanks, Suzie.

Any further comments or questions?

G. Begg: This is more a comment on process than anything else. I think we’re getting a bit ahead of our skis here. For those of us who ski, that’s not a good place to be in. I think we need a business case to support. I think it’s just a good business practice to do that. We need some metrics attached to this. There are no metrics attached. I would find it much easier to make a decision on this item if a business case supporting it were advanced to us.

We’re being asked to make a decision to enhance staff. It seems like a reasonable thing to do, but the public would expect that we would do our due diligence. In any event, I think it should be supported by a business case which clearly articulates the metrics attached. We do contract out some legal work. What does that cost? How frequently do we have to use it? Would it be more cost advantageous to continue that practice?

I’m reluctant to make a decision without a fulsome business case that justifies.

S. Seo (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel): Thank you, Mr. Begg. I had prepared the briefing note that was part of the information that was provided to the committee, anticipating that this would be a discussion — that I would be making this request to you in public. Again, I’m happy to get into some metrics and figures — what we’ve spent for what reason — in an in-camera portion of the committee, if that is the wish of the committee.

I will look to the Clerk. I did prepare a more detailed business case that I did bring forward to the Clerk and to my colleagues of the Clerk’s leadership group. We did have quite a debate in terms of what is best for the Assembly as a whole — with costing, of course, being at the core of that discussion.

Again, unless I’m advised otherwise by the Clerk, I don’t feel comfortable, Mr. Begg, getting into some of those details at this time, as we normally don’t report out on details of legal expenditures by the organization.

G. Begg: I don’t have any expectation that you would discuss anything that you shouldn’t discuss. I’m just suggesting that there should be a business case advanced that clearly articulates the issues — not the personalities, not the people but the business case that supports the addition to the unit. I have no interest in knowing anything that I shouldn’t know about. But I think in the public portion of this, there is an expectation by the public that we, as stewards of public funds, make a decision based upon facts, figures, process and a wholesome, fulsome business case that supports it.

This is a fairly costly, I expect, expenditure, and a recurring expenditure. I’d just like to see…. I have no doubt that in the lead-up to this, there was a business case of some sort forwarded, and it was vetted and discussed. We were not a part of that discussion, so we don’t have the knowledge, in the global sense, that you have in making that decision. Just a thought.

S. Seo (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel): Yes, thank you.

Mr. Speaker: I think both Garry and Bob have made very valid comments. Maybe we can table this item until item 9, the last item, so we can discuss it in camera.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I just wanted to note, for the benefit of committee members, that we did, as Suzie mentioned, have a very thorough review, as we always do, for any justification for resources that are required in a mid-year cycle such as this. I know that Suzie has provided exceptionally dedicated service, and it’s important for me, as her colleague, to express my support for her dedicated efforts and her extensive hours in the service of the Legislative Assembly.

We are happy to provide, during the in-camera portion, a bit more context in the interim, with the hope that the committee will be able to give consideration to this creation of an FTE position at the earliest opportunity.

[11:15 a.m.]

I do believe it is a critical need to ensure that we are able to appropriately fulfil our obligations to support, with due diligence, procurement processes and other administrative processes here in a cost-effective manner.

As Suzie mentioned, we’d be happy to provide any information that the committee might require in terms of its assessments today. I did not anticipate, with respect to this presentation, as Garry has requested, any additional metrics, but we are happy to assemble anything that we can to move this along.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. For everybody’s benefit, momentarily then, let’s table it. We will bring it up in the in-camera portion of the meeting, and then discuss it. If necessary, we will bring it back in the public session, or we can discuss it another time.

S. Seo (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel): Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Let’s move on to the next item, the information technology road map.

Kate and Andrew, please take us through that.

Information Technology Road Map

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you. I’ll invite Andrew to be our lead on this agenda item, Mr. Speaker.

A. Spence: Thank you, Kate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good morning, Members.

The first quarter was a busy period, with IT efforts focused on enabling the completion of the spring hybrid setting while providing members and staff with ongoing support and delivering on priority projects and initiatives. Strategically, an IT road map has been drafted and is aligned with themes of client experience, enabling security and building foundational capabilities and infrastructure.

Over 50 initiatives have been identified that will span across this year and beyond and will be scheduled in a manner that reflects both the priority and the capacity for the organization to deliver and respond to change. Some of these priorities were captured in the 2021-22 IT department budget. However, some are unplanned projects, as the February budget was originally described as preliminary, with the evolving landscape still under assessment.

To maintain progress on IT road map priorities, ongoing support from external resources is required, with estimated resource needs for Q2 outlined in the email distributed in June and summarized in the briefing note. This ongoing support is required to continue the focus on client service, initiating new security-related projects and retaining project oversight and business readiness services.

While we recognize it’s early in the year to be forecasting a variance and while we will be working to reprioritize what we can within the IT department budget, it’s likely that alternative funding sources will be required. These sources include general Vote 1 underspend, which cannot be guaranteed so early in the fiscal, or subsequent budget requests to be approved by LAMC later in the fiscal year.

We will continue to closely monitor IT expenditure on a quarter-by-quarter basis and reprioritize funds as needed. Greater certainty on the funding source for these unfunded priorities is not expected to be available until the conclusion of Q2 or possibly Q3.

Looking ahead, aligned with the themes of the IT road map, observations and lessons learned, building capacity related to cybersecurity, systems architecture, project management and business readiness are really paramount to meeting stakeholder expectations and strategic priorities. Business case documentation will be prepared to build capacity in these areas.

With that summary, I’m happy to answer any questions you may have on these materials or the recommendation provided. We also have some time aside in the in-camera to further discuss security matters.

P. Milobar: I don’t think it’s any surprise. I’m assuming the other caucuses are having the same challenges with constit office communications that we’re having, in terms of outages. Several in a day. Then you get stable for awhile and then not.

I guess two things. You touched on that this is pretty early in the year to already be anticipating an overspend. I’m just wondering why so early in the budget. This is 13 percent more to what already seems to be a record-level spend for IT, and we’re in Q2.

[11:20 a.m.]

To Garry’s point earlier about how, ultimately, these are tax dollars, we’re talking about helping your yearly budget just for Q2 by 13 percent with no guarantees you’re not coming back in Q3 and Q4.

At a certain point, you start to get a little concerned. Where does it all come…? The budget looks like it’s going for IT services. Given, frankly, the performance…. I’d be remiss if I didn’t say it — on behalf of our caucus, anyways — that within our own ability to service our constituents, it has been eight months of complete frustration that seems to not be getting any better and, if anything, is getting worse.

A. Spence: Yes, I definitely recognize the ongoing challenges that we continue to face. We’re really focused on these priorities to help address that technical debt that exists within our network and infrastructure and really focusing here in Q2 to try and address those concerns by making sure we have people onsite addressing these issues and proactively working to address this.

I definitely recognize those. We’re working to really manage the financial aspects of this as carefully and as prudently as possible.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I did want to note that when we were in a position to present the full budget to your committee some months ago for the present fiscal year, we did take the opportunity to flag that the budget at that time was based on a very preliminary road map. What we brought forward was the best that we could envision at that point in time.

We made a commitment to continue to work to validate the budget requirements and to prioritize investments along the same themes that were supported by the committee at that time, and that Andrew has put forward today, with respect to the foundational work that required a focus on client experience.

I very much appreciate the comments and the challenges that members have noted, Mr. Milobar, with respect to constituency office concerns, primarily this week. I know the team is very focused on resolving those. But in addition to client experience and the security aspects, the foundational components, as Andrew said, are significant with respect to the changes that have been brought forward in a short period of time. I’m confident that the team will get us to a better place at the very first opportunity.

Again, the budget initially put forward some months ago to your committee did anticipate the likelihood that additional investments would be required to sustain those commitments in support of members during the fiscal year. I just wanted to provide that context, because I appreciate the questions and the ongoing challenges that we are continuing to address.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody else? No.

Then, Andrew, you have a recommendation for the committee to consider and pass a motion.

A. Spence: Yes, I do. In terms of the recommendation that the Legislative Assembly Management Committee authorize the Q2 unplanned IT expenditures, totalling at approximately $750,000, under an assumption that further analysis and refinement will be undertaken to determine what portion of this amount can be accommodated within the approved Vote 1 2021-22 budget.

Mr. Speaker: Any comments? No.

The motion reads: “That the unplanned quarter 2 information technology expenditures be approved, as presented, up to $750,000, subject to further updates on financials and IT roadmap progress provided at the conclusion of each financial quarter to the Subcommittee on Finance and Audit and the Committee.”

B. D’Eith: So moved.

Mr. Speaker: It’s been moved. It has been seconded.

Motion approved.

Security and Personnel Matters

Mr. Speaker: Now the next item. We need a motion to proceed in camera to consider security and personnel matters.

M. Babchuk: So moved.

Mr. Speaker: It’s been moved and seconded.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 11:25 a.m. to 12:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: We are now in public.

If there is no further discussion on the agenda, the motion is to adjourn.

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 12:02 p.m.