The committee met at 4:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Approval of Agenda and Minutes

Mr. Speaker: I call the meeting to order.

Approval of the draft agenda, as was circulated, has been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Now, we have two sets of minutes — January 31, 2022, and February 22, 2022. The meetings of this committee, the minutes.

Kate, do you have some comments before we deal with…?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Good afternoon, Members.

I wanted to draw members’ attention to a revision to our usual practice of circulating draft minutes of the committee. Pursuant to the governance framework, which was adopted by the committee two months ago now, we are circulating copies of the draft in-camera minutes directly to members’ private email accounts for their review.

You’ll see in the presentation materials for this afternoon’s meeting that the public portion of the minutes are reflected there for your consideration and your approval, in the black text; and then the in-camera portion is also included, in the red text. I just wanted to draw your attention to the two elements of those draft minutes.

You can certainly approve them together, by way of a motion, today. If there are any changes to either, I’d be happy to take your direction. If you have any substantive points of discussion, of course, on any element of the in-camera minutes, it would be ideal to discuss that in the in-camera portion of the meeting later today.

Mr. Speaker: Why don’t we do that.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): As members will see, we have two sets of minutes, which are both prepared in that style, as I’ve described. One is from January 31, and one is from February 22.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Let’s first deal with the January 31 meeting minutes.

May I have a motion to approve the minutes of January 31 as circulated.

Moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Let’s then deal with the minutes of the February 22 meeting.

May I have a motion again, please.

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Item No. 3 is an update from the Clerk.

Clerk’s Update

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker, and good afternoon, Members.

I have a few items to note this afternoon. I would note that as compared to the February 22 meeting, which was fairly hastily organized, I did want to extend a welcome to the two new members from the official opposition, Todd Stone and Coralee Oakes, and also to advise members that pursuant to the commitments within our governance framework that we have offered an orientation training session to both new members of the committee. We certainly welcome them to the committee.

I have a number of other items that I’d like to note as well, one with respect to the Vancouver-Quilchena constituency office. Following the resignation of Mr. Wilkinson in February and with the Speaker’s support, the Legislative Assembly has moved to cover the monthly lease cost of the existing Vancouver-Quilchena constituency office through to the election of a new member, following the anticipated by-election.

The landlord was supportive of us continuing the lease with the same termination clause applying if the newly elected member did not wish to continue the space. Given the limited availability of office space in the Lower Mainland and the economical rent in a good location, I was very pleased that we would be able to take those interim steps, which I think will benefit the new member as well, in due course.

[4:40 p.m.]

I’ll also mention to members that the administration is working towards the completion of our first strategic plan, which we’ll be launching next month. It will outline, as members know, the principle strategic goals and priorities for the year ahead. Each department of the assembly administration is currently working on their own operating plans to help us support a successful execution of the overall strategic plan for the organization.

In the months ahead, we’ll be working with an eye on the strategic plan, building organizational capacity and undertaking initiatives that better position our teams to deliver on our core purpose of providing the services and infrastructure vital to this democratic institution.

We’ll also be investing in modern, secure and sustainable infrastructure, both in our physical space here on the precinct as well as in our IT and digital infrastructure. We’ll continue our commitment to promote diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, focusing on employee engagement and learning and development opportunities.

Along with Speaker Chouhan, I’m also working to prepare our first reconciliation action plan for the Legislative Assembly, which will also be incorporated into our strategic plan in the year ahead.

All of these efforts we hope will ultimately contribute to the good services and support for you, Members, and the institution that we’re all so proud to serve. I look forward to sharing a more detailed planning update with you at my next opportunity.

I also wanted to just take a moment to speak about some changes in our human resources department. Although our new interim chief human resources officer, Manjit Bains, is not able to attend the meeting this afternoon, I did want to express my appreciation to her on the record for the strong leadership that she has undertaken since taking on that position in January, earlier this year.

She’s been very focused on strengthening organizational capacity within the human resources team, including stabilizing that team through a period of leadership transition and also helping us ensure that the strategic priorities we’ve set for the year ahead are well positioned.

Those include co-leading a corporate services information system strategy, which we referred to previously as an ERP project, enterprise resource…. The acronym ERP, which is a business transformation project that helps us integrate information services across the various departments in the administration.

G. Begg: The T stands for team.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Pardon me?

G. Begg: I bet the T stands for team.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): ERP, enterprise resource planning, so an integrated system to help us plan and support systems in all of the administrative departments.

Andrew Spence and Manjit Bains are working together quite closely to identify the needs, particularly in our payroll and HR services area. We will be bringing forward some updates on that significant progress to keep the committee informed of the work that’s underway to modernize those systems and to ensure…. It’s very critical for our business continuity objectives as well as supporting effective decision-making in the organization.

Manjit is also working with me to finalize the development of a diversity, equity, inclusivity and accessibility strategy in the months ahead. It’s an important part of our strategic plan and also the mandate letter that I was provided with by this committee and with the Speaker. We’ll be looking forward to working together and bringing forward more updates on that piece.

Finally, we’re still working to complete the implementation of the compensation review that was undertaken of Legislative Assembly positions over the past year. Manjit is working to finalize the framework and completion of the strategy to ensure an inclusive and supportive work environment that attracts, retains and develops employees in our environment.

I know Manjit very much wanted to come today to have an opportunity to brief you on some of the initiatives in her areas. I’ve invited her to do so at the next opportunity, at the next time that the committee will reconvene.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Kate.

Any discussion, questions? Thank you.

I guess they need me in the House now, so this committee will be in recess for about ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:44 p.m. to 4:48 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: I’m calling the committee back to order.

We are now on item No. 4 on the agenda, capital budget request, fire alarm update project.

Capital Budget Request
for Fire Alarm Upgrade Project

H. Woodward: There is a decision note before the committee today, where we are seeking approval to proceed with the fire alarm upgrade project as a capital project. That’s for both the current fiscal year, so 2021-22, and next fiscal year, 2022-23.

By way of background, the fire alarm upgrade project is a multi-year project. It has been ongoing for several years, and it’s under the responsibility of the legislative facilities services department. Up until the current year, the project costs have been treated as an operating expense, as the costs of the individual components did not meet the capital assets threshold.

With the project now moving into heritage office spaces, we had to change the component design. They’re more expensive. They’ve now triggered on assets threshold for capitalization. As a result, all future costs for this project now need to be treated as a capital expense.

[4:50 p.m.]

In accordance with our policy 3030, capital project review and approval, any capital projects arising after the annual Vote 1 budget is approved must receive preapproval in order to proceed. That preapproval and the level of expense authority is dependent on the value of the project.

In this case, the project for both 2021-22 and the next fiscal, as well, is over $100,000, which is the approval threshold for this committee.

The request before the committee today is to consider approval of, one, the project approval form for fiscal 2021-22, this year, in the amount of $130,000, and also the project approval form for 2022-23 in the amount of $150,000.

Consideration and approval by this committee of the two project approval forms, which are attached to the decision note, will enable the payment of vendors in the current year for work they have performed. Also, it will allow for the project to proceed on an accelerated schedule and ensure the timely completion of both phases 1 and 2 in fiscal ’22-23.

I’m happy to answer any questions on the request.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s definitely capital. It definitely needs to be done.

J. Brar: I do support moving forward to the capital.

Is there a policy that we have when a project moves from operating to capital?

H. Woodward: We have two policies. We have the accounting for tangible capital assets, which determines a capital project. In this particular case, because the project had…. It’s based on a threshold.

We have accounting policies. As soon as the accounting determination is made, we have to make that consideration and that change. In this case, because it’s a midyear cycle approval, we need to come back to this committee.

We do have…. It’s consistent with public sector accounting standards.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

S. Furstenau: I raised it at finance and audit. I’m putting it back on the record that I don’t think the alarm is working in our lower office.

H. Woodward: Okay. Thank you.

S. Furstenau: If that could be followed up.

H. Woodward: We’ll follow up.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. If no further questions, we have to approve the capital budget request, as presented.

It has been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: No. 5 on the agenda — respectful workplace policy, external investigators.

Respectful Workplace Policy
and External Investigators

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

Members have received a decision note with an expanded listing of external investigators to be retained in the event that they are required to conduct or assist with an investigation pursuant to the respectful workplace policy, which was adopted by the Legislative Assembly Management Committee some time ago, in 2021.

At the time of its adoption, members may recall there were…. I think there were only three external investigator firms that had been identified to be available to the assembly should their services be required. At the request of the committee, we have undertaken a very thorough review of the range of expertise and knowledge that would be required to support individuals with respect to any investigations resulting from a complaint or allegation of disrespectful conduct, which may include elements of discrimination or harassment on any protected grounds.

The list of external investigators, which is brought forward today on page 2 of the briefing note, is a much-expanded list and is representative of a number of firms and individuals with significant expertise and recognition in this area of practice.

The request being brought forward to you for consideration today is a motion to amend the list of external investigators as previously presented.

I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

G. Begg: What’s the criterion that’s used to select from the list? Do you understand what I mean? We have eight that are approved. How do we decide? Is it on a rotational basis or…?

[4:55 p.m.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Yes. I think much will also turn on the availability. We want to ensure that the investigation proceeds in a timely way. Based on the circumstances that may be evident, there are some areas of practice here, with other areas of expertise that may come into play.

You might remember as well, Garry, that it comes very late in the process. There are many efforts made up until this point to resolve a concern through an informal process, mediation. But should it come to this point, I believe that the policy provides for guidance with respect to how the investigators would be determined. Because we have a range now, we can ensure that it’s agreeable to all parties.

Mr. Speaker: I have a question, Kate. Would the employee who is concerned about this, who may have a complaint…? Would they have a say in selecting who would be the investigator?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I believe that that is a consideration in the policy, but I don’t have it in front of me. I’d be happy to circle back to members after the meeting to confirm the process of selection just to ensure that I don’t misspeak at this point.

G. Begg: My concern is that there may be the perception of bias if there’s not a rotational system or some system by which we can justify, because it works the other way as well. I suppose allegations could be made that because of our prior contact, we selected this firm rather than another firm, whatever. We have to remove any perception of bias. I think there has to be a process that we can refer to which would accommodate the Speaker’s concern as well.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody else?

J. Brar: I’m curious to understand. I understand we have selected the people, and subsequently, we will have some sort of agreement with the firm. How do you bring consistency about the outcomes? These are different people and different skill sets completely. Like, outcomes in dealing with similar cases.

Mr. Speaker: You’re saying, basically, that at one point, we have used firm A, and they delivered their decision based on the evidence and circumstances. Then the next issue comes up. We go to firm B on a rotational basis, but firm A has already had the expertise in dealing with that kind of thing. You’re saying we should also consider using the previous firm, rather than going on rotation?

J. Brar: That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying the….

Hon. M. Farnworth: How do you ensure the same outcome or a similar outcome based on similar circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I would say, in that case, we would be dependent on the provisions of the policy and the fair administration by the independent respectful workplace office. That is an active role they would play.

In reviewing the provisions of the policy, it is ultimately the decision of the independent respectful workplace office. They can entertain requests by the complainant or the respondent with respect to the selection from the list. Ultimately, that is within their mandate — to ensure an equitable and effective process.

J. Brar: Okay.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

G. Begg: Is there a prescribed rate of pay that is equal for all of them, or are some more expensive than others?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): It would be a range. But all of them being established firms, I’m sure there are some…. There’s some consistency there, but I don’t have the rates available to share with the committee this afternoon, Garry. I’m anticipating that there would be some variation, firm to firm.

G. Begg: But shouldn’t we set the rate?

Mr. Speaker: From my past experience — in my previous life, I have done these kinds of things before — yes, we would deal with that company in advance. We lay out our expectations and what kind of complaint there could be. It’s a hypothetical at that stage. We ask them what kind of rate their services would be. Then we also tell them the range of our expectations — that we can only go up to this point or that point. So we negotiate that with them.

Here are very established, big firms. I don’t know what their policies are going to be.

[5:00 p.m.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): It may also be a reflection of the complexity of various investigations and how many professionals may be involved in assisting. There could be various individuals, let’s say, who could be, for example, interviewed to provide evidence with respect to one element of the complaint or another.

I think there would be definitely a range of costs associated, based on the amount of time that would be required to assist the assembly with these matters.

G. Begg: I’m concerned about the rate. Obviously, it can be a different rate. In the RCMP, we would provide legal counsel to members charged with offences, but there was a ceiling rate, just because it can get very expensive.

The provision of legal services may be an obligation and duty of the employer, but we don’t want to build a cottage industry on the backs of the government. That happens, right?

I don’t know how we…. I guess we can put a fence around it, in the sense that we can set the rate as not to exceed a specific amount per hour or whatever the billing process is.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Why don’t we just find out, in general, what they…? Get a sense of what they charge, and then we can have further discussion.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Yes, we’d be happy to provide the committee with a general sense of the range of the hourly rates. I know that the committee has approved, as part of the Vote 1 budget estimates for the Legislative Assembly for the year ahead, a budget for the office, the independent office. Incorporated within that estimate would include funds that may be required, should an investigation arise.

The professional rate charged by each firm — I’d be happy to provide that information as a follow-up item to members.

S. Furstenau: I think for some context around the policy, it’s largely meant to be preventative, the proactive approach to having the policy. As I understand, we are going to get sort of a yearly report on data. Is that correct?

Yes, I see the Clerk nodding her head.

We’d be able to have a sense every year of how many cases would actually go this far. I expect it would — hopefully, given the intention of the policy — be zero to few. But it’ll be really helpful to have that data as part of our assessment every year of how the policy in the office is working.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I would also mention, if I might, that the working group who has assisted us with the development and review of the policy to date, which is comprised of members of this committee — Michele Babchuk and Sonia Furstenau, of course…. Previously it was Peter Milobar, and I believe Mr. Stone is a member of that working group currently.

We have an opportunity to bring to that working group a new contract to retain a new firm to assist us with the administration of the independent respectful workplace policy. If there are any other refinements that members would like us to bring to the working group for consideration, I’d be happy to do so relatively soon. We’ve just completed preparation of the request for proposals, and I anticipate that it would be ready for the consideration of the working group very soon.

I’ll also mention that we have reached out to other employee groups at the Legislative Assembly, as requested by the committee at the time the policy was formally approved. We have recently had the opportunity — through the Office of the Premier and with the support of the chief of staff, Mr. Meggs — to ensure that the policy also applies to political staff in ministerial offices and the Office of the Premier. That addition will be an expanded component with respect to application of the policy, and it will be included in the appendix to the policy with the next update.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions or comments? All right.

May I have the motion that pursuant to section 4.03 of the respectful workplace policy, the amended list of external investigators be adopted as presented.

It has been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

[5:05 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Now we have item No. 6, the 2021-22 quarter 3 financial update.

Consideration of
Quarterly Financial Statements

H. Woodward: The report before you today includes the financial projections for the period ended December 31, 2021. It consists of nine months of actual results and three months of projections.

As of December 31, 2021, the total operating expenses were projected to be underspent by $2 million, against a total budget of $86.1 million. In addition, total capital expenses were projected to be underspent by $2.4 million, against a budget of $6.3 million.

I’ll start by focusing on the operational costs. If you go to the bottom of page 1, the variances are broken down into three main areas.

The first is members services, which is forecasting a $1.2 million underspend. The main variance relates to savings and benefits and lower transitional assistance payments to former members following the October 2020 election.

The second category is caucus support services. As at December 31, 2021, all caucuses were forecasting to be fully spent and to spend the full approved budget combined of $8.2 million.

The final category is administrative support services, which is forecasting an $861,000 underspend, mainly as a result of staff vacancies, unused contingencies and savings in operational expenses.

If I could have the committee turn to page 2 of the report, the departments projected to be overbudget as of quarter 3 are highlighted. The amber colour, or yellow, is if they are over budget but by less than 5 percent, and red if by more than 5 percent over budget. The detailed explanations of each of the variances by department are covered on pages 3 and 4 of the report.

In terms of the projected overspends, the three departments of note are the Office of the Clerk, which is projected to be over budget by approximately $90,000. That is a result of the new legal counsel position, which was approved midyear by this committee, and greater-than-anticipated legal costs.

The other area is the information technology department. It’s projected to be over budget by $1.7 million. That’s a result of unbudgeted costs related to professional services. You will all, however, note that contingencies, which are held in a general centralized expense budget, have been set aside to partially offset this overage. So we have one under and one over.

In addition, Hansard Services is projected to be over budget by $241,000 as a result of higher salaries and benefits due to increased committee activity throughout the fiscal year.

I’ll turn now to page 5 of the report. This is on the capital expenditures. Again, as of December 31, 2021, there was a projected underspend of $2.4 million on the budget of $6.3 million. Now, the main contributor to this underspend is within the capital planning and development department. It’s primarily related to project delays, for a number of reasons.

We have a staff vacancy that’s resulting from recruitment challenges. There’s contractor availability to support the major project work that is being undertaken. Also, we have supply chain issues which have resulted in delayed project timelines. The impact of this can also be seen on the operating expense, where there’s also a projected underspend for this department.

Now, given that we’re at March 30, we have fiscal year-end, which is currently upon us. We have the continued challenges at the macro level regarding logistical supply chain issues. We have recruitment challenges. As a result, we are continuing to see a rising trend in the projected underspend for the Legislative Assembly.

That information will be provided at our quarter 4 report, which will be our actual results for the year. In addition to the report that you’re seeing here today, we will be providing a more detailed analysis of the end results.

I’d be pleased to answer any questions that any members might have on this quarter 3 report.

J. Brar: Thank you for this. A 38 percent variance on the capital expenses is huge.

H. Woodward: Yes.

J. Brar: I see the description here as to why it happened. But I mean, this is huge. Is there anything we can do to improve it in the future?

[5:10 p.m.]

H. Woodward: One of the things that we have undertaken as part of the budget for Vote 1 for next year, which was approved by this committee in December, is that for the capital planning, we’ve really scaled back, in terms of the projects.

For those that were on the committee at that time, we’ve restricted it to the projects that we’ve started, to complete those, so no additional projects coming forward. We’ve also revised the timelines in terms of completion on those. We expect to be delivering on what we anticipated to and put forward in the budget for next year.

T. Stone: For absolute clarity, following up on Jagrup’s question, you’re not anticipating a moving of the underspend from this fiscal to the following fiscal. Rather, you’ve adjusted the projects that you’re anticipating or planning for the next fiscal that will be less than maybe otherwise.

H. Woodward: Yes. Actually, I really appreciate that question. That is exactly what we have done. There is not an anticipation that this underspend will be on top of what we’ve approved for the budget. We’ve actually done a recast of those projects to determine at what stage and to what we can actually deliver for next fiscal.

T. Stone: Are there any projects that…. When you’re scaling back the scope of some of these projects or eliminating projects entirely, are there any that are of concern to the department, because you’re not doing them or reducing scope, that maybe presents some risk, in some sense?

H. Woodward: Yes. What will come back to this committee is we’re actually looking for, even from the budget that we presented in December, a reallocation in terms of some of those projects. So for one of them from the budget, you will have seen what’s for the fire escape project to proceed and what we’re seeing in terms of the construction estimates we’ve received. The costs are increasing significantly, particularly in regards to glass, which is one of the pieces we have to do — replacement for safety glass in that project.

We will be bringing forward, to the subcommittee on finance and audit and then up to this committee, a fuller breakdown of those projects coming up for next year.

I’d be happy to answer any detailed questions.

T. Stone: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Any other questions, comments? No.

The financial update will be posted on the Legislative Assembly website.

H. Woodward: Yes, correct.

Mr. Speaker: Item No. 7, 2021-22 Q3 policy non-compliance and exception report.

Kate and Hilary.

Policy Non-compliance
and Exception Report

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Members will have received, in your meeting material package, a report of policy non-compliance and exceptions that were made during the third quarter of the fiscal year. As you can see, the report covers a number of instances of policy non-compliance, which we disclose to you in acknowledgment of your important oversight role with respect to the operations of the administration and as required by our Legislative Assembly policy framework.

With respect to instances of non-compliance, there are a number described in this quarter’s report: two instances of non-compliance with respect to corporate purchasing card use; one with respect to capital project review and approval policy; and 44 instances of non-compliance with the vacation policy, particularly with respect to the 2021 vacation leave period.

On that topic, I will note that work to review the requirements of the vacation policy are underway now. There was a significant change in the posture of the organization with respect to carryover of unused vacation time. Instead of requiring employees to use a minimum number of vacation hours on an annual basis, we are looking towards limiting the maximum amount of carryover that is permitted under the policy — so reversing, at the outset, the requirements of this policy with a view to, of course, always prioritizing the importance of employees taking well-earned vacation time at the assembly.

This unusually high instance of non-compliance, I think, reflects the approach taken in the previous policy, which requires the minimum of three weeks’ vacation to be used by employees.

[5:15 p.m.]

Again, just for clarity, the employees, I anticipate under the new policy, will be able to carryover, but we will be capping the maximum amount of carryover on a year-to-year basis, which should address the compliance concerns.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Use it or lose it.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): That’s right. That’s the simple approach. The minister’s quite correct.

I’m bringing forward to your attention three instances of policy exceptions that I authorized as Clerk, which are outlined in the second half of the report.

An exception to our vacation policy with respect to a long-serving employee who is retiring this year, to enable them to use it as pre-retirement leave.

An exception to the overtime policy to allow an individual seeking an extended break in support of mental wellness to take some compensatory time off, overtime hours, with the anticipated leave.

Then finally, under the recruitment and selection policy, an exception made by me with respect to a relocation allowance that was provided to an employee who left the organization with a balance owing on that relocation amount. At the time of departure, I decided to waive the obligation with respect to the personal circumstances affecting the employee’s resignation at that time.

If members have any questions about the public report or would like to discuss any of these instances in greater detail during the in-camera session, I’d be happy to have that happen.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions, comment? No. Thank you.

Hilary, do you want to say anything?

H. Woodward: No. I think that appropriately covered it.

Mr. Speaker: Then we have item No. 8, 2022-23 policy development workplan.

Policy Development Workplan

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I’ll note, on this agenda item, which is typically led by Artour…. He’s on Table duty at the moment, so I will be walking the committee through our policy development workplan for the year ahead, which is deposited with your committee annually pursuant to our policy framework.

I wanted to acknowledge that we continue to work through, undertake an incredible amount of work with respect to policy renewal at the Legislative Assembly. That work was well underway in the fiscal year that is just about to conclude. I wanted to acknowledge both Artour and my colleague, Scott Clare, a senior policy and project analyst; all of the members of the policy committee; and the many subject matter experts within the administration departments who contributed to the good progress over this current year, now concluding.

We do recognize that there’s a lot of work that remains as we seek to continue to modernize our policy landscape. This includes policies applicable to members that will be considered by your committee in due course, as well as policies that apply to employees within the administration.

We are very grateful to the committee’s support in the budget request for 2022-2023. With your support, we will be able to have a new policy analyst FTE. It’s our first one at the Legislative Assembly, so we’re looking forward to the recruitment of that individual.

This workplan is brought forward this afternoon as an information item. We’d be grateful for any input or feedback from members at this point or in the future, particularly where we may have policy gaps or areas where you feel that we should strengthen policy to ensure that we provide certainty and clarity across the board.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just a quick question in terms of…. There’s quite an extensive list. Is there any thought to prioritizing and having us have a look at any that you may think need to be a priority in terms of resources being devoted to them?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): From a members’ perspective?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Absolutely. It’s very much welcome, that conversation, Minister. I’ll just emphasize that there are some policies that will affect members, in particular, I believe there, with respect to a number of IT-related policies. The approval authority, of course, will be this committee, so we will be bringing those forward to the subcommittee on administration and operations.

I believe consultation with caucuses have already taken place, but just to ensure members are aware that the final decision and approval will rest with you. If you have any suggestions with respect to prioritization, we’d be very appreciative of that feedback.

Mr. Speaker: Any further discussion or comments?

T. Stone: Is this an appropriate time to ask for clarification on a couple of the items that are on the list?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Yes, and we’ll do our best to try and answer.

T. Stone: Just the two. So on the first page, prepaid expenses. Can you elaborate? It’s the second from the bottom on the first page.

[5:20 p.m.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Right, yes.

T. Stone: What does that actually contemplate?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): The department…. It’s a financial services policy.

Hilary, I note that it’s a revision. Do you have an update on where that’s at or what the objective….

H. Woodward: I might have to get back to you on that, but it isn’t a new policy. It is a revision. I’m happy to share.

T. Stone: Yeah, that would be great, if you could.

Then on the last page, on the back, the fourth from the bottom, constituency office expenditures, formalizing a process for spending of public moneys, etc., etc. What is contemplated there? This is one that hasn’t started yet.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Right. I think that part of the intent with this would be to bring forward, in a clear format, a policy that better addresses all of the components of the policy. It’s currently, in essence, a narrative on a website. The Members’ Guide to Policy and Resources website is our authoritative policy source.

We had brought forward, in the last few months, a proposal to better strengthen and provide more clarity to frameworks such as those that govern the expenditure in constituency offices. It’s not necessarily going to substantially change the outcomes of what, let’s say, an eligible expense would be, but it’s the formatting of that policy and ensuring that there is clarity.

I believe, as well, that there are a number of questions that have been identified which we would be resolving with respect to the objectives of what that revision would cover.

We can certainly provide members a more active update on any policy revisions that are planned that affect members, in particular, if there’s an interest at the next meeting.

T. Stone: I think that’s where I’m going with it. Let’s head off what could otherwise be some potential tension by making sure that we’re able to go back to our respective caucuses with a bit of a heads-up that there’s some work being done on policy that may have some impact.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Absolutely. If there are any substantial changes, I think it would be very helpful to ensure that we clearly understand what the objective is before that work begins, so to receive support from the committee with respect to the framework that we would undertake if any substantive changes are contemplated.

Mr. Speaker: To better understand the constituency office needs and all that, the Clerk’s office has started reaching out to some constituency offices to get their questions and concerns, so they will better understand — to make sure that that goes into the policy, that those issues are addressed.

Anybody else?

C. Oakes: Just a question on whether this would be the appropriate time to talk about the review or development of a policy for members who, for example, may be undergoing different medical treatments such as chemo, radiation — the policy on how we are going to address travel compensation.

I know that we’ve had that problem in our caucus. As opposed to a one-off, have we considered how we’re going to actually form a policy, and would this be the time to discuss it or at a later date?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Actually, we’ve already initiated that, but Hilary, you can speak to it.

H. Woodward: Thank you, Kate.

We actually have received that feedback and that information, so we’re in the process of developing a proposal, and it will come forward to the subcommittee on administration and operations for consideration and any feedback from members on that group. Then it will proceed to this committee level.

It is top of mind, and I think I have a March 31 deadline for that, so that’s tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes those items.

Personnel Matters

Mr. Speaker: Now may I have a motion to proceed in camera to consider some personnel matters.

Moved and seconded.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 5:24 p.m. to 5:39 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Okay, we are now in public session.

If there is no item to discuss, then we will have a motion to adjourn.

Moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 5:39 p.m.