The committee met at 10:36 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Approval of Agenda and Minutes

Mr. Speaker: You have received the agenda, which was circulated earlier.

Any changes to that agenda? None.

May I have a motion to approve the agenda as circulated.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The second item is review and approval of the draft minutes of August 4, 2022.

Any changes to the minutes of August 12? None.

Then may I have a motion to approve the minutes, please.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Item 3 on our agenda is the update from the Clerk.

Kate, please proceed.

Clerk’s Update

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning, Members. It’s very nice to see you here in this committee proceeding today.

I know that everybody has finished a very busy stretch of time with our fall sitting period. On behalf of our executive team, I wanted to thank all of the various departments within the Legislative Assembly administration for their incredible efforts to support all of you and your staff during the fall sitting period.

It’s been an extraordinarily busy time for all, but I’m very pleased that we have now been able to successfully conclude the fall sitting period and looking forward to supporting you as members of this committee with respect to a number of organizational priorities, many of which we’ll be speaking about today.

I’ll note that it’s been a very busy period, in particular for our Hansard Services team. We recognized and cele­brated their 50th anniversary as part of the Legislative Assembly a few weeks ago.

As part of our collective ongoing commitment to accessibility, I was also very pleased that the team was able to incorporate American Sign Language broadcast into the routine business proceedings portion of the House proceedings during the fall sitting period. I’m looking forward to receiving an assessment of that innovative addition to our broadcast proceedings and looking forward to bringing forward any recommendations for your consideration.

Hansard also continues to drive innovation with the ongoing refinement of the automated speech recognition technology which was implemented earlier this year to support the editing team in preparing transcripts of proceedings.

Hansard’s broadcast advancements in audio technology also helped us ensure that the Birch Room was put to the test as part of the three active chambers in House proceedings just last week. Special thanks to the Hansard broadcasting team for all of their hard work and innovation throughout the fall sitting period.

I’ll also note that as part of our service excellence strategic goal, new service technology has been implemented by our information technology team. This, combined with engaging and listening to our users, is an important ongoing commitment for the Legislative Assembly administration as we enter the final stretch in terms of modernizing our IT infrastructure, particularly the networks in the constituency offices across the province.

So much good work by the administration team in many different facets of our administration and looking forward to the discussion with all members later this morning.

[10:40 a.m.]

We have a fulsome agenda, including a number of in-camera items at the end of the agenda, so I’ll pause there so that we can continue with the many agenda items before us this morning.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions for Kate, any comments?

Thank you, Kate.

Okay. Let’s move on to item 4, MLA travel guidelines and the reimbursement of flights.

Artour, please.

Members’ Travel Guidelines
for Airfare

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning, committee members.

Last year your committee made a decision to modify, on a temporary basis, the “Members’ guide to policy and resources” to permit the reimbursement of prepaid flights. That was extended, earlier this year, until November 30, 2022.

My understanding, from discussions with caucuses, is this continues to be a pinch point for members, given the uncertain nature of flight operations. So the recommendation before the committee this morning is to extend this temporary provision until the end of the upcoming spring sitting period, to May 31, 2023.

Given that this continues to be uncertain, we will be undertaking a further assessment in the spring and bring any recommendations on a permanent revision to the policy provisions on a go-forward basis, beyond what is proposed — the temporary extension that is proposed.

I’m happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions for Artour?

T. Stone: Really just a comment, because Artour basically answered what I was going to ask, and that was if we were going to consider a permanent revision to this policy. I would strongly suggest that we should do that.

I would just point out that I know this would be the case with a number of government members that represent ridings in the Interior and the North. Travel is a problem. It was a challenge before the pandemic. It continues to be a challenge today, with the airlines in particular. So we would have all kinds of situations where members…. If they didn’t book well in advance for a seat on a flight that is very limited in frequency, it would cause significant challenges for that member to get to and from Victoria.

I don’t see any downside as to why this policy which, very rightfully so, has been altered on a temporary basis to this point…. I certainly support it continuing to be that way through to the end of the spring session. I just would like to humbly suggest that we address this on a permanent basis as soon as possible thereafter.

J. Brar: I do support the recommendation, but there’s a minor change I would like to propose. The recommendation right now is to extend the exemption to May 31, which is actually a Wednesday, to accommodate the spring session. Typically we sit until Thursday, if that’s the case.

I would propose, so we don’t have any unintended consequences, that we should amend the date to June 30, 2023.

C. Oakes: Actually, I would like us to consider that we make a motion to move this as a permanent policy.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments? Okay, so somebody should move….

Artour, I think you need a proper amendment — to read that.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Yeah, I think I’m going to put what Coralee proposed up on the screen. If she would like to move it, I’ll leave that to her.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, Coralee, now it reads….

C. Oakes: I move that further to the resolution of the committee of May 27, 2021, and January 31, 2022, members’ travel guidelines on airfare be modified in the “Members’ guide to policy and resources” to permit the reimbursement of prepaid flights.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Seconded.

Motion approved.

[10:45 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Now item 5, car-sharing, the eligi­bility for reimbursement policy revision recommendation from the subcommittee on administration and operations.

Artour, please walk us through that.

Members’ Travel Guidelines
for Car-Sharing

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Thank you, Chair. Earlier this fall the subcommittee on administration and operations considered adding car-sharing expenditures as an eligible business expense to the “Members’ guide to policy and resources” to be reimbursed upon the provision of receipts for the business trip undertaken. For clarity, this does not include the reimbursement of car-share memberships. It’s just any business trips taken as part of a car-share.

The recommendation before the committee today is to add car-sharing as an eligible business expense to the travel sections of the “Members’ guide to policy and resources.” So this would apply both to members’ travel as well as to constituency assistant travel for those members who do have a CA travel allowance as part of their CO budget.

Mr. Speaker: I see two hands up for Todd and Jagrup. Are they from the previous motion or new? No. Okay.

All right. So it’s recommended as option 2. I’ll read the recommendation again, and somebody needs to move it.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Mr. Speaker, I do think that Jagrup wanted to ask a question.

J. Brar: Yeah, Mr. Chair, I just want to say that I have actually heard from a member that they…. I understand the intention here is to allow car-sharing as an eligible reimbursement for the full cost of the trip, but that does not include the membership fee in this case. That’s not claimable. I just want to inform the members about that. There’s a car-share membership fee that is not part of this.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): That’s correct. Yes, that was discussed by the subcommittee, and the recommendation that they brought forward to the committee is that membership fees are not reimbursable.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Any further comments?

If not, somebody to move that motion.

It’s been moved; it has been seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, item 6 is MLA attendance at community events by donation.

Kate, please walk us through that.

Members’ Attendance at
Community Events

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This briefing note provides an opportunity for the committee to consider a subcommittee recommendation to provide further clarity with respect to the reimbursement of members’ attendance at community events by donation.

Members will have seen in the enclosed decision note that the policy provisions will ensure that the event is non-partisan in nature and that the ticket price may include a meal or beverage. However, further to the discussions at the subcommittee level, one change was made to the briefing note, and there is no reimbursement cap on these community event tickets.

A revised proposal is brought forward on page 1 of your briefing note for this agenda item, which simply ensures that the “Members’ guide to policy and resources” is amended to provide for the eligibility for reimbursement from constituency office funds for members’ attendance at non-partisan community events by donation.

Mr. Speaker: Any comments, questions?

No. Then may I have the motion as presented, as it is on the screen?

J. Brar: So moved.

Mr. Speaker: Moved. Somebody to second it?

It’s been seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Number 7, constituency office communications.

Artour.

Constituency Office Communications

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Thank you, Chair. Again, this is a recommendation coming forward from the subcommittee on administration and operations.

Constituency office communications is a policy matter that’s been considered by your committee and by its advisory subcommittees over the past couple of years, and there are some further modifications to the policy that have been brought forward to streamline and clarify policy provisions and hopefully hit that target of reasonability. The amendments made by the subcommittee are noted in the attachment to the decision note before you today.

[10:50 a.m.]

As noted in the briefing note, it does include examples of eligible communications and ineligible communications, but these are not exhaustive lists. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions?

T. Stone: Mr. Speaker, I have got one. On page 3 of the backgrounder, there just appears to be an inconsistency under the overview section. It says in that first paragraph: “Constituency office communications cannot include political party or caucus logos/branding.” Then the last bullet that follows in the list there says: “Eligible content includes advertising messages that include the caucus logo/branding.”

That would just appear to be an inconsistency that we should just make sure we’re totally clear about.

Mr. Speaker: Good catch.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Thank you for that. We’ll ensure that that’s corrected in the version that’s posted on the “Members’ guide to policy and resources” and that is communicated to members. The intent of the subcommittee discussion, as I recall it, was to not include caucus logos and branding but to provide for some more flexibility when it comes to colour.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. So then, as Todd suggested or pointed out, that last bullet will be….

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): It will be removed from the version of the policy that’s posted on the “Members’ guide to policy and resources” and that’s communicated to members and caucuses. Correct.

Mr. Speaker: With that clarification, Members, any further discussion or comments?

C. Oakes: Mr. Speaker, may I just make a quick comment? In the conversation, I believe, Michele was the one that brought that up.

I could stand corrected, but it was the notion that some of the things that we had previously brought forward did have caucus branding on it. For example, say we wanted to do a Remembrance Day post. Sometimes we will put it as like a caucus and we’ll take a group ad, or say, sometimes group ads will be taken out on behalf of caucus.

I’m fine either way. It’s just that I think that’s what had been brought up previously.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): I’m sorry if my recollection is fuzzy, but my understanding was that the example Michele brought forward at the subcommittee was in relation to ad buys that were purchased by the caucus and not using constituency office funds.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s correct.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Then I’ll just put the motion on the screen that it be as amended, reflecting the amendment that Todd flagged.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, and that is that the revised constituency office communications policy provisions in the “Members’ guide to policy and resources” be approved as amended.

May I have somebody to move it?

It has been moved. It has been seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The next one is No. 8, child care facilities, discussing the recommendations from the subcommittee on administration and operations.

Kate.

Child Care Facility

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

Today I’m bringing forward an opportunity for the committee to provide a decision on the latest proposal for an employer-sponsored child care facility on the legislative precinct.

The subcommittee on administration and operations has reviewed this proposal and recommended that we develop a detailed project plan and establish a working group, with caucus representation, to oversee development and to inform our next steps.

In essence, I’m seeking your approval to move forward with the recommended two decision items so that we have the overall direction we need to do the groundwork and return to LAMC seeking formal project approval on a detailed concept plan. We anticipate returning to the committee for approval by the end of this fiscal year.

This is the first in a series of decision points and opportunities to provide input that will ensure a facility meets the needs for the precinct families and for the surrounding community. As I said, there will be further opportunities to address concerns, mitigate risk or even rethink the project before committing to build a new facility.

[10:55 a.m.]

As we go over the proposal details, I’ll just note that the financial projections which have been incorporated into your briefing material are quite high-level, conservative estimates, meant to give a general cost comparison between options. We expect the actual project costs will be lower than projected. In order to protect our commercial interest, committee members received cost projections, but the exact amounts I’m hoping we won’t address in the on-the-record discussion here this morning.

I’m sure members will appreciate there are many benefits to pursuing medium- and long-term solutions with respect to a child care facility on the precinct grounds. Certainly, it would be an important component of modernizing our workplace and fostering a more family-friendly work environment. It would also enable us to create important support structures for parents and caregivers, especially the many women who work within the legislative environment.

With respect to the key elements of the decision point, you’ll see the proposals — a multi-age group child care program with 37 spaces available, which is 25 spaces for children three to five years old and 12 spaces for infants and toddlers under the age of three. This is seen to be the most sustainable business model, supporting families with multi-age young children and allowing children to stay in the same facility as they age out of the infant and toddler care program.

As per the decision note, we are seeking your support at a high level to pursue a detailed project proposal for a modular facility in the medium term to be placed on the back south lawn and a facility incorporated into the proposed redevelopment of the armoury building as a longer-term option.

With respect to the timeline, the modular facility’s expected completion is within one year of construction, and the armoury facility would be an expected completion of about four to five years, contingent on the armoury development project overall.

There are two motions with respect to the decision note that is brought forward to the committee this morning.

I’m pleased to answer any questions that members may have.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions?

Coralee, you have your hand up.

C. Oakes: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Actually, the first thing is I wanted to clarify the background information. In the discussion, I was very clear that my concerns ongoing with a modular or any direction we should take…. First, I fully support child care on the facilities, but two, the fundamental premise should be that security is taken into consideration.

When we start looking at other items that are identified in the agenda, my concern wasn’t that the consideration be given to safety and adherence to standards outlined in the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. We all know that we have laws that we need to fundamentally follow.

My concern was the unique nature of the legislative precinct. In any consideration that we make for child care, we need to make sure that safety is paramount. Whether you have protests or whether you have the items that we are later discussing in this agenda, in any movement that we make to ensure that we have child care on site, safety has to be absolutely considered.

The second piece that was critically important in that discussion was there was conversation, based on the changes with the electoral boundaries and decisions that are coming forward in the next year, that the armoury project should be brought forward in consideration at the same time as this discussion, in case there is the ability for us to move that project forward in a faster fashion.

I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if we could possibly move this discussion to the next agenda and, at the same time, bring the armoury project discussion so we can discuss that. If we’re talking two years’ difference and we’re putting a whole bunch of money out on a modular that doesn’t necessarily….

How does that fit in the safety plan? How does that fit in all of the other pieces that we’re looking at when we all know the armoury project is going to have to move forward? With the electoral boundaries and the increase in member seats, we just don’t have…. We are going to have to be doing some adjustments at the Legislature.

With that, I’m hoping we could, for consideration of the committee, move this to the next meeting and put the armouries project alongside with it.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody else?

The next….

Sorry, Garry.

[11:00 a.m.]

G. Begg: Thank you, Chair. Coralee brings up an impor­tant point that I hadn’t thought of at all, which that is the security profile, if you will, of the Legislature will be impacted by the presence of a child care facility on site.

I think it’s important that perhaps Ray or LAPS do a little impact study to determine what it does to our overall security profile. I hadn’t thought of that, candidly, but I think it’s an important consideration in relation to the overall security profile for the Legislature and may, depending upon the results of the study, cause us to reassess the entire security profile at the Legislature.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you very much. I very much appreciate members’ very good questions and observations around both the importance of security on our legislative precinct, particularly with the proposed additional new facility being contemplated for the grounds.

As I mentioned, the direction that we’re seeking from your committee this morning is very high level. It’s to, in essence, undertake work to prepare a more detailed concept plan. There have been a range of potential options placed in front of the committee from time to time. In order for us to work carefully with consultants and those who have expertise in the design of modular space, as well as the armouries project, we will be very much looking for your direction today to continue that very initial planning stage.

I am anticipating a project update would be brought to LAMC in about two months time, which would give us a much clearer idea of all of the needs and the feasibility with respect to the modular facility, in conjunction with our director of precinct services, who is also helping lead our armouries project.

I am anticipating that the subcommittee on administration and operations will also be receiving an update on that project very soon. So members will be well equipped with a more detailed proposal with respect to the modular option, the medium-term option as well as the armouries option in the weeks ahead.

With your support today, though, we will be able to undertake a much more fulsome set of discussions and consultations to be able to inform that project update back to your committee within the weeks ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Any further comment?

T. Stone: Just following on Garry’s points and Coralee’s comments, I do feel that we’re putting the cart before the horse here, in terms of being asked today. The option that’s being recommended, as I understand it, is not to bring forward a plan. It says on page 5, option 1: “Establish a modular facility on the back southwest lawn.” There’s a very specific dollar figure provided for and not a lot of other details.

To Kate’s comments that she’s just made, if there are more substantive details forthcoming, then I think it would be more appropriate for this committee, for LAMC, to consider those options — whether it makes sense to focus on an interim solution, as being proposed here in this modular project, or to roll that into a broader and larger project that relates to the armouries.

Regardless of those two, I do think it’s very sensible that any net new building on the precinct, modular or otherwise, be fully considered within the security context and the security profile of the Legislature. I just don’t see that information here today.

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that this be put off for another year or anything like that. But perhaps in time for the December 13 meeting, we could have the more fulsome details as to how this fits into the security view of where we’re going at the Legislature.

[11:05 a.m.]

I’d be more comfortable being asked to make a decision where I have the two options that are much more built out and better understood, I think, going forward, as opposed to what I see in this decision note for today.

Mr. Speaker: Kate, between now and December 13, can your committee put some information together on what the members are asking for?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Yes, I’d be happy to do some further work on the proposed project plan.

Just for clarity, the two decision items which are being brought forward today are on page 1 of the briefing note — first, that a project plan be prepared to establish a modular child care facility on the legislative precinct. It’s the first motion. Then the second proposed motion was that plans for the proposed redevelopment of the armouries include a child care facility.

I’m certainly happy to bring forward a project update at the December 13 meeting. I know that we were hoping to be in a position, with your support today, to do some additional groundwork — to meet with a consultant’s space planner to pull together as much information that we could to inform any decisions that would be made on December 13. That would certainly provide us with ample opportunity to factor in, through Ray Robitaille, our Sergeant-at-Arms, any security considerations with respect to either design.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody else have any…?

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

A. Olsen: As long as that is part of a plan, an outline as to the security posture that’s needed in order to protect not only the precinct but also a child care facility, I’m prepared to move…. As long as when we see that in December, we see the child care component to it, I’m prepared to move forward with those two motions on page 1.

C. Oakes: I’m just trying to understand. I don’t sit on the finance committee, but I do know a significant budget item was brought forward for the modular. Again, I think it’s premature for us to talk about that without talking about the armoury project. If we can move the armoury project….

If you look at what was presented to our committee, that presentation should be made available to all members of LAMC so that they understand that we could very well be moving this project forward in the spring. So if we are starting that conversation, wouldn’t it be better to look at how we build in the security, a proper child care facility on the footprint of the Legislature? Wouldn’t it be worth us having a little bit more conversation on that?

At this point, without having some of those details answered, I will not be supporting moving forward with the modular without us having an in-depth conversation of the armoury project and how we can move that forward.

T. Stone: Yeah, I agree with Coralee 100 percent. To Kate’s comments a moment ago, I totally understand the background and the context that was set out on the first couple of pages, but the recommendation on page 7 is very clear: “Plans to establish a child care facility for those who work on the precinct.” Option 1 is being recommended, right there, to “establish a modular facility on the back southwest lawn,” and then the third is to establish the working group and caucus representation, and so forth.

I just don’t feel comfortable, with the information at hand, to say today, “Let’s go forward,” and essentially sign off on moving forward with the modular facility, until I understand what the armouries project looks like and we understand the more intimate details around the safety and security protocols that Coralee has mentioned.

I just don’t see why, if that information is at hand, that couldn’t be provided to us to have an informed discussion on December 13.

[11:10 a.m.]

A. Olsen: It was my understanding that three options had been presented: an option off site; a medium-term option on site, which is this modular facility; and then another option was a more long-term solution that was going to be part of a redevelopment of the armouries building.

My feeling on it is that there is a child care need within the precinct and within the surrounding buildings which could accommodate a child care facility and that part of this whole initiative was to have a short-term — or a medium-term, I would say, if that’s what we do next year — solution to be developed on that back lawn while we were looking at a much longer-term solution that would be built right into a new facility, should that occur.

That was my understanding of the situation. The next stage of the process was to get that plan brought to us.

The only motion that I’m prepared to support is the one on page 1. The recommendations, I think, that Todd was talking about were recommendations coming forward from a previous committee discussion.

The only motions that I’m prepared to support are the ones on page 1, which are that we instruct our staff to come back with a report to outline not only what Coralee has raised, which is the security issue…. I think Garry and Todd and others have raised them as well. I mean, we’re looking at security overall in our constituency offices and personal security, all that. It makes total sense.

The only motions that I’m prepared to move are the ones on the first page, which are simply to get staff to bring that report back — which is, I thought, where we were at.

G. Begg: A general comment. I think this discussion illustrates the need, in my view, Kate, for a decision-making matrix or a decision-making tree, whatever term you choose to use, so that when subjects like this arise, we can be confident that the impact, for example, on security and the impact on everything else and on the grounds has been addressed.

That’s quite often, in business, what is done. There is a sign-in by everybody so that we’re not dealing in isolation and then later thinking of things like security or something else that happens.

Just my desire for a matrix or a decision tree that’s signed off by everyone so that we’re not acting in isolation when we make these decisions which clearly have an impact on something else on the precinct.

C. Oakes: Garry, thank you very much. I think it would be very helpful for us to have that. Many of us…. There are changes in membership on this committee.

I guess the question I had around the armoury project: has the armoury project come to the full LAMC committee?

One of the challenges I have with LAMC is there are three separate committees that are dealing…. It feels, often, like silos. I raised at the last meeting that the security meeting, I felt, should have been part of the operations committee. But we have these silos of committees, and often some of the decision-making process, I find…. We are to approve items that sometimes are not in the same….

For example, the finance committee, as I understand it, has already approved the money for a modular, and I could be wrong. I get that that has to come forward. Or at least, it was part of a discussion with a full schematic of what a modular would look like.

I guess my question, going back, is: has the armoury project come forward for a thorough discussion to the entire LAMC? I think that is a critical discussion, to Garry’s point, in the decision-making process of how we move forward.

J. Brar: I think this is an important discussion. I lean towards what Adam has proposed here.

My understanding is that we’re talking about two things. The armoury building is a very important discussion. It may start sooner than we think, but my understanding is that it may take years to complete that project. We are talking about child care needs, which is very important for a lot of people who are working at the Legislature and for members.

[11:15 a.m.]

What we are asking in this meeting, basically, moving forward, is for staff to bring back more fulsome information about this. I think the security issue is very important. That could be, probably, part of that information as well.

If the armoury building…. That may start sooner, but it may take years. But this is something my caucus members and staff members have been asking for. Most of you have been having discussions on this for, now, two years. I think it would be helpful for the committee to understand where we are with these options — that we’re providing full information, of course, including security information.

As far as the subcommittees are concerned, my understanding currently is that those subcommittees have the power to make decisions. They can make recommendations to LAMC.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you very much, Members, for the guidance. I very much appreciate the discussion today.

With respect to the armouries redevelopment project, members of the subcommittee on administration and operations received an overview of that project on November 2, so just a number of weeks ago. We had an opportunity with our director of precinct services to walk you through the status of that project.

We have issued an RFP, as members will recall, in late 2021, which was awarded to an architectural firm. We’re currently near to completion of the very first phase of that project, which is a conceptual design. So as we work towards finalizing project governance, one of the key priorities at this point in time is to look at the programming of that building. But the project team has advised that they are very close to being able to bring design concepts forward to members at the conceptual design phase of that project.

We are definitely nearing the opportunity to provide you with an important milestone update on that conceptual design. After that point, just at a high level, there will be further work to create an indicative design, which outlines a number of seismic options. I believe there are three stages of seismic resiliency, which will be put in front of the committee as well. Then a formal business case will be brought forward, and then we will be seeking, from your committee, project approval for the armouries project.

Still a number of steps ahead of us, very similar to the child care proposal that I brought forward today, in terms of…. We’re seeking your support that the modular option is one for which you would like to receive a more fulsome project plan. This would require your approval before we would actually go out to procurement, and then basically, effective project approval would still occur after the procurement phase, even for the modular opportunity, the medium-term option.

I hear from members how important it is for you to ensure that we have fully incorporated into our feasibility assessment, at the earliest stage possible, security considerations. I’m happy to work with Ray and his team to ensure that the next phase, the project planning phase, will include those considerations.

If time permits at our meeting on December 13, I’d certainly be happy, as well, to bring forward an update on the armouries redevelopment proposal, so the entire committee will have the benefit of hearing exactly where we are with the redevelopment plan and to answer any questions you might have from a security perspective or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: Now the question is: do you still need that general motion, as suggested by Adam, or should we wait entirely until December 13, and we will revisit it with the additional information that we would have from the staff?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Well, I would like to work with our space planner to prepare a more detailed project plan, as per the motion on page 1. If it’s premature for us to have the committee consider that motion, I’m in the hands of the members.

I would certainly like to receive direction from the com­mittee, either now or December 13, to move ahead with the creation of a project plan with respect to the modular facility.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let’s wait till we get the additional information for the 13th.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): So we will we will return to the committee then, if time permits, on December 13.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, we’ll leave it until then. Thank you.

Let’s move on, then, to item 9, 2021-22 accountability report.

Kate, please. We’re all yours.

[11:20 a.m.]

Legislative Assembly
Accountability Report

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

On this agenda item, we’re bringing forward our draft accountability report for the 2021-2022 year. We’re seeking consideration of the committee to adopt the report as presented.

This is the last time that we anticipate preparing an annual report in this format, as, now that we have had your approval to proceed with our new strategic plan, we’re anticipating a change to our annual reporting cycle. As well, our goals and objectives and our initiatives will, of course, align with those within our new strategic plan, as compared to this older template.

The draft accountability report brought forward to you includes, on page 5, a number of operational highlights for the 2021-22 year. On pages 8 to 14, you’ll see the original four goals and a number of key initiatives, which are highlighted. Some performance measures and indicators are included on page 15.

As per the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act, section 5, which requires the committee to report annually to the Legislative Assembly on decisions that it has made, we’ve also included, on pages 16 to 18, a list of committee decisions.

The overall report focuses on the key areas of operational support provided throughout the year, including our ongoing work to support the continuity of the institution through COVID-19, as well as important governance reforms, including the adoption of the first Legislative Assembly governance framework, which was adopted by your committee in January of 2022.

Mr. Speaker: Any comments, questions?

Okay. Then the motion is on the screen — that the Accountability Report 2021-22 be adopted as presented, that it be deposited with the Office of the Clerk and that the Chair present the report to the Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity.

May I have a mover?

It’s been moved; it’s been seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Then we move on to item 10. That is the revised policy 1000, Legislative Assembly policy framework.

Legislative Assembly Policy
Framework and Revised Policy 1000

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): I apologize that I didn’t quite capture this correctly on the covering note. There are a number of changes that are coming forward for your committee’s consideration, as a recommendation from the subcommittee on administration and operations, with respect to policy 1000: Legislative Assembly policy framework, which is the foundational policy at the Legislative Assembly.

The changes, which are noted in red-line form in the documents you have before you, include the addition of clarity in policy areas and the approvals to which policies are subject, whether they are by your committee or by the Clerk; adding clarity and parameters around the issuance of interim directives — that’s in section 6; adding clarity on the authority by whom policy exceptions can be authorized — that’s in section 9; and then some other minor editorial and housekeeping modifications that, as I said, are noted in red-line form.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Any discussion?

T. Stone: I’m just wondering. In section 9, the policy exceptions refers to the exceptions that can be granted by the Speaker. I’m wondering if $5,000 is a high enough threshold. Would it be more appropriate to be at $10,000? I don’t want to belabour this point, because I know this is the product of work at a different committee, and so forth.

Perhaps, Kate, you could just give us a sense of if, in your review, the $5,000 encapsulates all the scenarios that you might be able to imagine, or if a slightly higher threshold would give you just a little bit more breathing room.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): I know the question was put to Kate, but I’ll jump in if that’s okay.

Maybe just for comparison, we did think that the $5,000 threshold was reasonable. In the last parliament, there was a delegation of authority of a similar nature. That was to the subcommittee on finance and audit, and that was in the amount of $10,000. If that figure sits well with the committee, we can certainly make that modification.

[11:25 a.m.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I don’t have any additional information to share. I do think that the $10,000 amendment is still reflective of a prudent and accountable approach. I think the main provisions that is important to me is that we demonstrate accountability through reporting of these exceptions. But the threshold amendment is a prudent one, I feel.

Mr. Speaker: Todd, any further comments on that?

T. Stone: No, I’m good. I would be happy to see the number at $10,000 if others on the committee support that. If not, it’s not a hill to die on.

Mr. Speaker: Any other members? All right. Then let’s….

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Mr. Speaker, I think Garry….

Mr. Speaker: Garry, sorry.

G. Begg: Thank you, Chair. Sorry, but I think that it’s important that we look at this in the context of the nimbleness of the organization that we’re trying to achieve here. I agree with Todd that $10,000 is a much more reasonable expense, which allows us to have a nimble process rather than this continual downgrading.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, so it’s proposed that we amend the amount from $5,000 to $10,000. Is that acceptable to the members?

Do we need a motion for that, Artour?

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): I’ll capture, Mr. Speaker, that the policy has been modified, and the motion will just read “as amended,” rather than “as presented.” I’ll put that on the screen.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Now the motion is that the revised policy 1000: Legislative Assembly policy framework be approved as amended.

May I have a mover.

It’s been moved; it’s been seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s move on to the next item, 11: revised policy 3030, non-budgetary cycle capital project review and approval.

Non-budgetary Cycle Capital Project
Review and Approval and
Revised Policy 3030

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Just picking up on Garry’s comments about nimbleness, this is a recommendation coming forward from the subcommittee on audit and finance — with respect to proposed modifications to non-budgetary cycle capital project review and approval thresholds, in particular. What we’ve done with this policy is refined the objective and the scope just to provide clarity that applies to capital expenditures that arise outside of the normal budgetary cycle.

We’ve revised, streamlined and simplified policy provisions for clarity and in alignment with changes to organizational and governance structures within the Legislative Assembly. As I noted, we’ve revised the approval thresh­olds, as outlined in section 2.04, placing greater delegated authority to both the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and to the subcommittee on finance and audit.

We’ve increased what we consider to be a project contingency threshold and also updated some definitions and language throughout the policy. This approach, we believe, is going to increase our agility as an organization, given challenging market and supply chain conditions at the current time.

Mr. Speaker: Any comments?

None. Then let’s have the motion on the screen. It would read that the revised policy 3030 non-budgetary cycle capital project review and approval be approved as presented. Do we have a mover?

It’s been moved; seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s move on to item 12, then: 2022-23 quarter 1 and quarter 2 policy non-compliance and exception report.

Kate.

Policy Non-compliance
and Exception Report

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of our executive financial officer, Randy Smith, we’re bringing forward this quarterly report for the period up to September 30.

[11:30 a.m.]

To the best of our knowledge, only one instance of policy non-compliance has been brought forward and is requiring reporting. That is one instance of an exception to our procurement policy, which is described in a bit more detail on the reverse of the briefing note, with respect to the nature of the exception that was made with that matter.

As has been noted, this is an important accountability mechanism for us and is found within our Legislative Assembly policy framework, the policy 1000 which we were just talking about a moment ago.

Randy and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions, comments? No.

All right, then. I think we need a motion.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): No motion is required. This is just an information item, Chair.

Your motion is probably to move in camera now.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. So all those items up to this stage on the agenda have been dealt with.

Security, Legal and Personnel Matters

Mr. Speaker: The next item is to have a motion to move in camera to consider security, legal and personnel matters.

May I have a motion please.

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 11:31 a.m. to 12:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Motion to adjourn.

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’ll see you on December 13, or maybe before.

Take care.

The committee adjourned at 12:03 p.m.