The committee met at 1:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed, members and staff, I would like to note two changes to the membership of our committee. We have the new Government House Leader, Hon. Ravi Kahlon, and the new government caucus chair, Nicholas Simons, joining us today for their first meeting of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee. I extend a warm welcome to both of you.

At the same time, I also, on behalf of all our members, want to say thank you to Hon. Mike Farnworth and Hon. Jagrup Brar, those who served in the committee for a long time, for their service.

Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Jagrup.

Approval of Agenda and Minutes

Mr. Speaker: First item on the agenda is approval of the draft agenda.

Any changes to the agenda as circulated?

If yes….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

If not, then a motion to approve the agenda.

Coralee has moved.

Motion approved.

[1:05 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The second item on the agenda is the review and approval of the draft minutes of the November 28, ’22, meeting of the committee.

Any changes to the minutes?

If not, a motion to approve.

Somebody moved; Adam did. Seconded.

Motion approved.

Consideration of
Quarterly Financial Statements

Mr. Speaker: Item 3, the 2022-23 quarter 2 final update.

M. Burke: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the executive financial summary and the financial projections for the period ended September 30, 2022. This includes six months of actual results and six months of projections, including adjustments to reflect recent changes.

The total operating expenses are currently projecting an underspend of $3.36 million against a budget of $92 million. The total capital expenses are currently projected to be underspent by $2.42 million on a budget of $9.5 million.

Focusing on the operational costs, at the bottom of page 1 there, on the executive financial summary, the variances are broken down into three main areas.

The first area is members services. This is currently forecasted to show an underspend of just over $3 million. This underspend has several drivers, including the constituency office network refresh cost reclassification; inflation coming in at 2.8 percent actual, which is lower than the budget, at 4 percent; lower benefits usage; and less travel than anticipated.

The second area is the caucus support services, which is currently forecast to be fully spent. The third area is the administrative support services, which is currently forecasting a $289,000 underspend, mainly driven by unused centralized contingencies. Supply chain challenges continue to hamper initiatives targeted for the current fiscal year. I also want to note that the dining room is extremely busy, with sales exceeding budgets to date.

Pages 2 to 4 provide more detailed descriptions at the department level. We use the traffic light system to highlight variances to budget. The orange is exceeding budget by less than 5 percent, and the red there is exceeding budget by more than 5 percent.

If you turn to page 5, on the capital expenditures, there is a projected underspend of $2.4 million on a budget of $9.5 million. The main contributors to this underspend include various projects within the capital planning and development department due to project delays, staffing capacity and market conditions. We anticipate the underspend may increase as we move closer to year-end.

I’m happy to take any questions.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions for Mike?

M. Babchuk: Just when we’re doing projections and forecasts, are we always…? Like, this is 25 percent of the entire budget. That’s a huge sort of forecasting discrepancy. I understand where it is, but some of those challenges have been COVID-related for years.

I’m wondering. Is that something that we normally see in a forecast, a 25 percent discrepancy?

M. Burke: Jesse, do you want to take it?

J. Szczepanowski: Yes, thank you for the question. The current forecast on the capital budget is behind budget for sure, and it’s because of the market conditions mostly. It’s also because of capacity within our capital planning and development team as well.

I am the new director, and I am here to try and make some changes and tighten up those budgets. You will see that as part of the budget presentation for next fiscal year as well. We’ll talk about how we’re going to address that moving forward.

Mr. Speaker: Thanks, Jesse.

Any other comment?

Commercial Interest Matters

Mr. Speaker: Let’s move on to item No. 4. That’s commercial interest matters. That issue we would need to discuss in camera.

May I have a motion to proceed in camera to consider the commercial interest matters?

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 1:09 p.m. to 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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

The next item on the agenda is No. 5, child care facil­ities, recommendations from the subcommittee on administration and operations.

Child Care Facility

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

On this agenda item, I’m grateful for the opportunity to provide some more information, as requested by the committee at your last meeting, on November 28. In bringing forward the recommendations from the subcommittee on administration, there were three items of additional information that we received from members and that we’re happy to address. It’s summarized in the briefing note here. I’m happy to take any questions that you may have.

Before highlighting those, I wanted to again thank members for the feedback from the last meeting. I think it helped us to realize that we needed to bring forward clearer information and strengthen governance processes. I look forward to working with committee members in the months ahead on these proposals.

I also wanted to thank Coralee for her feedback generally on the work of the subcommittees. We recognize there are a lot of commitments and responsibilities that members carry and, on a go-forward basis, I’m looking forward to ensuring that we have more consistent reporting from the subcommittees that is available to all committee members.

Thank you for that observation, Coralee.

In the briefing note circulated for this meeting, as is noted, members had requested three streams of additional information to be provided: an update on the status and timelines of the Armouries project, consideration at the outset of any initial security or risk assessments for the proposed modular child care facility, as well as an overview of project governance.

The briefing note encapsulates some high-level information with respect to the status of the Armouries building. That’s still subject to a number of key decision points by LAMC. Construction drawings will be prepared, and before any construction is likely to begin, it will be, I think, the ’25-26 fiscal year, with full opening for use not anticipated till the ’27-28 fiscal year.

The proposed modular child care facility, which is another new proposed construction project on the grounds, has not yet proceeded to the concept plan phase, but that concept planning work will include a security assessment. I’m grateful to Ray Robitaille, Sergeant-at-Arms, and his team for the support that they have provided as we work through the proposed feasibility work for that particular project.

The completed project concept plan will be provided to the subcommittee on administration and operations for consideration and formal project approval, with a more detailed project plan to follow, and security considerations will be a key component throughout the planning phase.

Then just a note that with respect to project governance for new construction projects, we’re looking forward to working with committee members and subcommittee members on establishing a good process to deal with these new initiatives on the precinct grounds.

If there is a desire for the committee at this point to contemplate the motions that had been recommended from the subcommittee on administration and operations, we’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have with respect to those proposals.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, I want to thank folks for the work they’ve been doing on advancing the child care piece in particular. I know that certainly Premier Horgan and Premier Eby are very focused on making sure that we have more elected officials that reflect the population and, in particular, getting more younger MLAs elected. Of course, having these supports in place will help attract more young people to put their name forward to get into politics.

I think it’s understood — by us, anyway, and I’m sure others as well — that none of us will actually benefit from child care facilities that are being built here. The decisions we’re making here are about giving space and giving opportunity to people that will come after us.

I really want to thank you for the work that the team has been doing, for everyone that has been working on this. I think the future governments will see a real benefit from this work. Thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker: Any other comments before we move to the motions?

C. Oakes: I think it’s also critically important. We all do our jobs because of our staff, and the fact is that we have exceptional staff. It’s a competitive market, and we want to make sure we’re taking care of staff, not just within our individual offices but in the precincts.

[1:40 p.m.]

At all times, on the decisions we’re making, we want to make sure it’s clear that as we move forward, staff should…. I’m thinking of this, too, to make sure that staff get the options there. As elected officials, we are here — what? — 97 days of the year. So any of the decisions we’re making for this precinct — we’ve got to make sure that our staff are put at the heart of that. I want to make sure that we go on record that in any of the decisions we’re making, we’re acknowledging that look, that’s critically important.

Mr. Speaker: That’s important — just to make sure that all along our discussions, we’ve been focusing on the broader section of people who work here, including members and staff and the future members and future staff as well. It’s to cover everyone. Thank you.

A. Olsen: I guess in that context, the current members here could potentially benefit from that, because we have stability with staff who may choose to start a family or may have a family. I know we’ve experienced that over the last little while with staff that have moved on.

I think that if there were child care facilities here, where they felt that they were included in that…. That being an option, I think, will help retain and make life a little bit more affordable for the people that work in this building that are outside the MLA teams that are here.

One of the concerns that I’ve had raised in my constituency over the last few months is just a concern about disruption that’s happening within child care facilities around my riding. I’m wondering if it’s possible for…. We’ve got here…. We’re creating space for a child care operation. If this moves forward, it basically just creates the space.

How the service will be delivered, who will be delivering it and what the government intends, how they intend those services to be delivered in the future, I think is not a part of the discussion that has been here.

I was concerned when we were talking about another relationship just with respect to partnering with a service and the potential sustainability of those with the way that the child care is rolling out. I’m wondering if it would be worthwhile, should this proceed and get the support to move to the next stage, that either the subcommittee on operations or one of the subcommittees get a briefing from the Ministry of Child Care about the services that are being delivered and how the service that would be on the site could be included within the funding for $10 a day, for example, or however the government is planning to go forward with it.

There has been some disruption in that, and I think that if we’re building the space, that’s one thing. But making sure we understand how those services are to be delivered going forward — the intention of the government I think is an important part of that.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Absolutely. If I might, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for the interest and support, Adam, and for the suggestion. The project team has been in touch with the ministry, and it’s certainly our intention to ensure, if there is support to proceed with a modular facility, that it represents quality, inclusive care not only for precinct families but, if possible, for some members of our local community as well.

We will certainly take that opportunity, as you’ve suggested, to ensure that the ministry expertise is folded into our planning process and that members of the subcommittee on administration and operations also have the benefit of hearing from the ministry as we move forward.

We are also looking forward to seeking input from members of caucuses as well, to ensure that in our own planning, we don’t focus exclusively on the administration but, as you’ve mentioned, staff who work around the precinct and their needs taken into account.

Mr. Speaker: Any…?

T. Stone: I assume we’re going to move to the decision pretty quickly here, so I just wanted, on the record and publicly, to say a couple of things.

[1:45 p.m.]

As my colleague has mentioned, our caucus very much supports moving forward with child care services on this precinct. We have a number of staff who desperately need it. There are staff, I know — in all caucuses, I think — that will benefit from this. It’s a matter of being very thoughtful and thorough with the concept planning and the options that are brought forward, and so forth.

I do appreciate the clarification that was provided to me previously today. The $500,000 number, which is part of Vote 1, is a contingency account, and it’s from that account that approximately $130,000 would be utilized for concept planning on this. That seems like a very reasonable amount. Frankly, the more we interact with Jesse, our director of precinct services, I think the more all of our confidence goes up with these projects, so that’s good.

Our caucus, however, wants to make sure that the priority on child care spaces goes to staff. If there are spaces left over that aren’t utilized by staff, then…. MLAs, elected members, would come after that. I sure hope that part of the proposal, the options that we get to consider here in the near future, also speaks to the broader community need, which would probably be more likely based into the Armouries proposal. For this particular modular proposal, it’s very, very important that the staff take priority over elected officials, from the perspective of our caucus.

I don’t know if this is the appropriate time to do it, but we would like to amend the motion to reflect that and to make that very, very clear. The concept plan would be brought back to this full LAMC committee for consideration, and one of the key guiding principles for this project would be that the child care needs of staff on the legislative precinct be given priority over elected members.

I’ve got an amended motion all written up that I’d be happy to circulate.

Mr. Speaker: Todd, just a clarification in my own mind. I understand what you’re saying. Everything is…. The priority is for the staff and all that.

What if there’s a single mom who happens to be an MLA? She has a small child, and she is in need of child care services. Where would she be placed? Would she be part of the priorities, like any other staff, or would she not be?

T. Stone: I think there’s a tremendous number of moms and dads out there, whether they’re single moms or single dads or married couples, that have significant child care needs in the broader community.

Mr. Speaker: I’m talking about here, in the building.

T. Stone: Yeah, I know. You asked the question. I’ll give you my sense of it.

Mr. Speaker: Sure.

T. Stone: There is also, without question, the possibility of MLAs that have child care needs. There are staff as well. What we would like to see is that priority go to the staff, as a matter of principle. In many cases, the MLAs have more financial wherewithal than a lot of the staff do that work in this building, certainly at a cabinet minister salary. If you’re making $175,000 plus…. It’s easier to, I think, afford child care at that level of pay than what most staff get paid in this building.

We’re not saying that there isn’t a need, potentially, with MLAs. What we’re saying is that, from our caucus perspective, the priority should be clearly understood to be the staff that serve all the rest of us on a 12-month basis in this building and then elected officials, perhaps, as a next priority.

Mr. Speaker: That’s fine.

M. Babchuk: Thank you, Todd, for those comments. I understand where you’re going.

To go back to the discussion that happened two years ago, we’ve gone through a whole bunch of machination on what that looks like. We’ve looked at private child care. We’ve looked at fully subscribed child care through the Legislature. We’ve looked at partnering with a public provider.

The problem actually comes with MLAs and the fact that they are not here all the time. The option to possibly hold one spot, or two, just for those one-offs where…. Most MLAs have child care already planned out in their ridings, but if you’ve got a single mom or a single dad or even your wife goes into the hospital and you’ve got to bring the kids, there is an option that’s open there.

[1:50 p.m.]

I actually think we’re getting ahead of ourselves with that comment right now, because right now all we’re looking at is the ability to do a concept plan. Then the goal, from my perspective — and Kate, you can correct me if I’m wrong — is that that would come back to the operations and administration subcommittee, and we would have a discussion about what kind of logistics we are looking at for administration for those.

I certainly understand what you’re saying, but I think we need to be able to be a little bit flexible in there. I think, as an employer, we need to step into this century and make sure that our employees get what they need as well.

C. Oakes: I’m going to take us back to May 3, 2022. I think one of the challenges that we have — and perhaps once we have a SharePoint where we can go back and easily do searches…. We have addressed this for MLAs. This was something that was contemplated before any of us were on LAMC. That’s one of the challenges when we have new members, and then we come in. How do you carry forward that knowledge base?

What was brought forward for MLAs is there were options that have been provided that are now in place for MLAs, because we certainly recognize we want this to be a space that is attractive for MLAs coming in. But we solved that problem. There are options that have been identified where there are some services. There are the nanny referral services. There were pieces put in place for MLAs.

I guess what we’re trying to say as a caucus is that where the gap currently exists, as we see — Michele, to your point — is that it’s the staff piece where we need to get the priority. Look, as MLAs, we often have options that perhaps, maybe, other people don’t. We don’t want to be jumping the queues. We don’t want to…. We want to make sure that our staff are the priority and that the people in the precincts of the building, if we’re talking about child care, are what we’re looking at.

I guess our nervousness becomes: we covered off the MLA piece months ago on how MLAs can access child care here. I’m not saying that that is…. It’s from a conceptual plan. We just want to make sure we’re clearly saying that our staff need to be the priority of this project.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you for the context and the history of this conversation that’s been happening for many, many years. I do think we’re putting the cart before the horse here. I think the conversation is about a concept plan moving forward. I think the points that have been raised are excellent.

These are conversations that can happen as the project moves along in the various committees, as my colleague Michele has mentioned. They’re valid points all around, but I think we’re getting a little ahead of ourselves to have a conversation when we’re still at such an early stage of moving this project forward.

A. Olsen: I don’t mind having this as informing the plan going forward, to be honest with you. I think part of the challenge here, and I raised it, is that we’re talking about building a facility. I think when we’re talking about building a facility, we have to be clear about for what, for whom, when and what is going to be delivered in there. I don’t mind this amendment, actually.

I should also say that I don’t know that it changes much if it doesn’t get passed. What it does do is it identifies the fact that if LAMC passes this, we’re looking to be able to provide certainty for the staff members of the people that are working here.

That’s actually a different child care facility than if we were just focusing on MLAs, who are here for part of the year and not here for part of the year. The majority of staff that work in this precinct that support MLAs, support the Speaker and support the Clerk’s office and the team are here year-round. That’s a different child care program than one that’s looking after MLAs that are here for six months out of the year.

[1:55 p.m.]

I actually don’t think that the cart and the horse are necessarily out of order here with this amendment. All it does is it gives further definition about what concept it is we’re planning for. In that perspective, I think we can support it.

The reality is, from what I’ve seen around this building for the last five years, that the vast majority of the spaces are going to be taken up by people that work in the buildings around MLAs and that there will be, as you’ve pointed out, Mr. Speaker, one or two or a handful of MLAs at any given time that will need the service but not on a full-time, year-round basis. That’s why I think, actually, adding definition and some contour to this isn’t a bad deal.

N. Simons: I appreciate the comments. I am obviously very new to this conversation, and despite what Ravi says, we could all potentially benefit. But those plans are uncertain at this time. Yeah, life changes fast.

M. Babchuk: I’m not going to benefit. I’m going to tell you right now. I am not benefiting.

N. Simons: We all benefit when people who work near us are well looked after. Let’s remember that.

I wonder if…. We don’t know…. We don’t have, actually, a needs assessment from staff in this building. We don’t know what numbers we’re going to be looking at. We don’t know how many MLAs are going to be benefiting from this.

It just seems to me that we might be talking a bit in advance of when these kinds of decisions are being made, and it’s really good to be able to be publicly in favour of supporting child care for everyone and putting us…. As we are, we’re temporarily here and such. So I understand the reason for putting this motion forward.

I think it might be premature, because we don’t know what the makeup of this facility will be. We don’t know if it’s infant-toddler. We don’t know if it’ll be pre- and after-school. We don’t know how many staff will be involved. We don’t know this. You know, the square footage will have a huge impact on licensing.

All these kinds of questions, I think, should be part of a fulsome discussion once we’ve gotten past this particular phase.

M. Babchuk: I will point out, though, that there was a needs piece done. There was a survey that went out. MLAs did come back and have those conversations, and what we heard in that was very much that they valued this for their staff and the continuity and being able to retain staff for sure, and the possibility that it might be a one-off here or a one-off there where they might need to do this.

In theory, I think it’s a little bit early and sort of out of the scope of what the original motion was. But with that being said, ultimately, at the end of the day, the conversation that happened here was that the Legislature was a good employer. We were able to retain our staff. We were able to make sure that we were keeping up with all of the practices that are happening right now in work environments, and we can go forward.

But we do have a very good idea about how many staff in the precinct would actually use this. There have been some numbers developed on what this should accommodate. So yeah, I actually think we just need to move forward on this.

G. Begg: A comment designed specifically for Todd, because I know he will appreciate it: I think we’re getting a little ahead of our skis here. We’re at the concept stage, right? And these are issues that are recognized and can be addressed as we go on. I think the way it sits right now with the information we have is sufficient.

T. Stone: Well, I respectfully disagree that providing…. Much like my friend indicated earlier, specifically mentioning as a guiding principle that priority on spaces will go to the staff who actually work in this building on a 12-month basis — I don’t see that getting ahead of ourselves or getting over our skis, and so forth.

MLAs make $115,000 and change, notwithstanding whatever wage increase or no wage increase takes place moving forward. Cabinet ministers make $172,000. There’s a heck of a lot of staff in this building that make nowhere near those numbers that have child care needs.

[2:00 p.m.]

The assessment, and I appreciate Michele mentioning it, as I understand it, in the summer of 2022…. I assume this has been talking with and reaching out with the caucuses as well as staff and MLAs, and so forth. The project team that had gone out and did that initial needs assessment had determined that likely we had a current need of 37 spaces.

I would imagine, if we were to get the breakdown of that, and maybe Michele knows the answer to this question, the vast majority of the 37 spaces are staff. They’re not MLAs. That would tell me there’s no way, unless this is one heck of a…. If it’s an explodium-size modular unit that can accommodate 37 children, whether they be infants or toddlers, and so forth….

The point I’m trying to make is that the need is vast. There’s no question about it. It’s most significant, in raw numbers, with the staff who actually work in this building and who, I would argue, with probably a few exceptions make a heck of a lot less than what MLAs and elected officials make.

That’s all we’re saying. We’ve been strongly advocating for quite some time now that the larger Armouries project…. Let’s accelerate the concept planning on that and get the options in front of us and make a decision, as LAMC, as soon as possible on that project. That will give us the capacity to ensure that the child care needs of staff and elected officials and potentially even the broader community, which would be the right thing, ideally, to do — that we can meet all of those needs.

For the here and now, we’re talking about a modular unit that is going to have limited capacity and that won’t even come close to meeting the needs of the staff who work 12 months of the year serving all of the elected officials in this building.

I agree with Michele. It’s about being a good employer. It’s about focusing on everything and anything you can to retain your staff. Obviously, accessing child care is an important part of that. I just don’t think most British Columbians would view the elected officials as being the ones that should be prioritized over the staff that work in this building.

The final thing I would say is that the wording that has been put up on the screen does not…. The third sentence doesn’t accurately reflect, in my opinion, the intention of the amendment. I would ask….

Artour, if you could just type in what I actually have there. Oh, you don’t have it. Kate has it.

I want to make sure it’s crystal-clear the key principle guiding the project plan be that the child care needs of staff on the legislative precinct be given priority over elected members.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Michele, then after that, we will discuss Todd’s motion. It’s not an amendment.

The motion has not been moved, so you’re not amending it.

T. Stone: Okay. I’m proposing that when we get to it, it will be an amendment at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Yeah, it’ll be your motion. We will talk about it.

M. Babchuk: Not that I really want to flog a dead horse here, because I think we’re actually pretty close to being on the same page, but my question here is around process.

We’re having a conversation about a capital project, and we are putting in language around an operations and administration budget item. That’s why I’m having a problem having it added here. I would love to have this conversation at the operations and administration piece.

As far as us wanting it on the record, I believe we’re out of camera. It’s on the record.

It’s something that I think Kate and Raj would bring back. I actually think it is harder for staff now to put an operational amendment into a capital project motion, moving forward. That’s my piece with this.

I respect the intent from you, Todd. I just think the better place to do that is in the operations and administration piece. It’s on file; it’s recorded. I think staff know what direction you’re going in.

At our next operations and administration piece, we can certainly put it on there and take a look at it.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This has been great. This has been a good conversation.

Certainly, the motion that’s been put up on the screen is something that we would support. We’re supportive of it.

Again, I’ll leave it to the Clerk to decide whether this is something that needs to be put in at this moment. But if it helps guide the concept plan work, then we have no problems with advancing it this way.

[2:05 p.m.]

For us, it’s important to have child care available. We’ve been working on and very supportive of expanding child care for everyone. If it supports people here, that’s fan­tastic.

Hon. N. Simons: I’m not disagreeing. I’m just thinking…. Okay, that’s fine. There are all sorts of issues that would need to be resolved, whether people work for those in the building, here in the precinct, or just across the street, not in the precinct. I’m wondering. At what point do we say it’s for staff of the British Columbia government? At what point do we…? Is it open to the public? Is it fully public? I just don’t know.

We’re making a decision based on what street is behind and beside this building right now. It seems to me that’s a conversation that would happen later, but that’s my view.

C. Oakes: Michele, with all due respect, I go back to what my original comment was. We’ve had these conversations. We came up with a plan for MLAs. It was before our time. It was through LAMC. We had a plan.

Now the challenge becomes…. You have all these silos in subcommittees. I brought that up at the last meeting, right? You have silos of committees. You expect that well, this group will be talking about that. But if they’re not, then you find you’re coming into a capital project plan where the guiding principles have changed from what we talked about a year ago, but that’s not getting reflected in this, because now we’ve changed it again.

I think that’s where my concern is.

M. Babchuk: I would like to move, then, that a concept plan be prepared to establish a modular child care facility on the legislative precinct, that a concept plan be brought back to the committee for consideration and approval prior to the expenditure of any additional funds and that a key principle guiding the concept plan be that child care needs of caucus and Legislative Assembly staff be given priority over Members of the Legislative Assembly.

T. Stone: I want the record to reflect that I actually brought this forward and moved it. I appreciate that Michele has come around and that it would appear that we can all support this for what it is.

To Nicholas’s point, it’s a guiding principle. It’s not…. A child is a child; a space is a space. It doesn’t matter if it’s a child of an elected member or a child of a…. A child is a child. There are only so many spaces that this modular unit will have. I think we’re all at the same place there.

My intention in bringing this forward was, at the appropriate time, when the motion was to be put, that the amendment be brought forward. I think we have to vote on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The minutes will show that the motion was brought forward by Todd Stone. It will record it that way.

It seems like everybody agrees with the concept. I would also like to ask Kate what the staff thinks about how it would play out.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Well, I just wanted to assure members that I understand the wishes of the committee as expressed through this motion. It does not pose an obstacle that we cannot address within the concept plan that will be underway shortly, with your support.

I wanted to confirm, for clarity, that we can move ahead with this direction.

Thank you very much, Members.

Mr. Speaker: We have heard the motion. Do you want to repeat the motion? Do you want to read the motion, or everybody has seen it on the screen and that’s fine?

T. Stone: I think we’ve all heard it a few times. We can read it on the screen.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. We’ve heard the motion. Somebody to second it? It has been seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: There’s another motion which was presented to the members. Is there a desire to deal with that as well?

That motion reads that plans for the proposed redevelopment of the Armouries building include a child care facility.

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, let’s then move to item 6 on the agenda, which is 2023-24 Vote 1, Legislative Assembly budget submission.

[2:10 p.m.]

Vote 1 Budget 2023-2024

Hon. R. Kahlon: We want to move an amendment to the constituency office allowance. The amendment has been shared with every member of this committee.

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to speak to the amendment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, I can speak to it.

First off, I want to say a big thank-you to Artour and the assembly staff for the great work — in particular, for going to constituency offices and hearing from them about what their needs are. I know it was really appreciated by the offices that I spoke to — to have someone actually come and get a feel for what they’re doing and for the challenges that they’re facing.

At this point with the recommendation, we’ve decided not to accept the complete recommended amount. What we’re suggesting, with the amendment here, are some changes.

I’ve heard from my colleagues. I know colleagues across the way know how important the work that happens in our constituency offices is. I certainly know…. During the Electoral Boundaries Commission submissions, we heard from MLAs on both sides of the House about how much of a challenge it is to ensure that our constituency offices can meet the needs of our citizens. Certainly, we have the same views on our side.

I think it’s important for us to ensure that our offices are able to provide the services to the people of our community. That’s why this amendment has been brought forward.

I think it’s a good amendment, and I’m certainly hoping that we can have support from all members of this committee on it.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody else?

C. Oakes: Would this be the time to speak to the amendment, or do you want us to…? What would be your wish, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It’s up to you.

T. Stone: To the Government House Leader, are these a series of amendments, by the way, or is this one amendment?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s one amendment to the entire thing, yeah.

T. Stone: Okay. So as written, or will it be interpreted…?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As written. I’ve given a copy to….

C. Oakes: This goes to Michele’s, around how we have silos of different committees.

Because this is changing what is required under the constituency office allowance, “Members’ guide to policy and resources,” I would assume, I’m wondering why this actually never went to our committee, even the increase to the constituency allowance.

It went to the finance committee, but it never went to the policy committee, the administrative subcommittee, so we never actually saw what was outlined in the changes. It changes the…. It actually becomes part of the “Members’ guide to policy and resources.”

I’m wondering, from a process perspective, why this never found its way to our committee. It was a pretty significant change. It did go to the finance committee to fund the changes, but as a policy directive, because there were some pretty…. The constituency office budgets always go through this “Members’ guide to policy and resources,” and we have to approve that, right? That goes through a subcommittee that we’re in.

I’m wondering why that particular piece never went to the subcommittee.

M. Babchuk: It’s my understanding that it didn’t go to the subcommittee because…. Actually, we do the resource guide, but the financial implications are what are inside that resource guide, right? The policy pieces on this are through the finance committee. We just get it after the fact as a guide, from that.

C. Oakes: There are policy implications about the geographic that it changes. The health care bit changes.

As I understand it, we only have a note that’s in Vote 1. We just have one box to go upon, but there are some pretty significant changes. If I were to read forward the changes that are being proposed today, which I think are worthy of consideration….

Again, it goes back to the point that you’re changing policy. Shouldn’t that go to the committee that generally brings that forward? I mean, we spend meetings on a communication policy change to be part of the members’ resource guide. Now you’re changing structures in the constituency office, but it didn’t get to that.

I’m sorry. I’m just trying to understand these processes.

Mr. Speaker: Kate, do you want to say something before I recognize Todd?

[2:15 p.m.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Yes. For clarification, as far as I can recall, to Coralee’s observation, a change to the constituency office funding model was brought forward to the subcommittee on finance and audit in October, so it has had some initial consideration. We folded it, of course, into the members services component of the Vote 1 budget submission, based on that recommendation and also based on the subcommittee on finance’s transmittal of the budget from an earlier meeting a number of weeks ago.

I just wanted to mention that. Of course, it’s ideal to have information such as this incorporated as early as we can into our budget presentation, the submission that we’ve prepared for today. Because this is new information….

This afternoon, at the appropriate time…. Once members have completed their initial discussion of this proposed approach, I’d suggest that staff could walk through the remainder of the presentation and then, if it’s helpful to committee members, perhaps a brief recess while we finalize, let’s say, an amendment to the members services subvote, if that’s where the intent of this proposed approach best resides with respect to the presentation today.

We’ve got three other subvotes to share with members: the Legislative Assembly support services budget, the caucus support services budget and the respectful workplace office. I understand it’s not the intent to change those materials, but I just want to ensure that all members are aware of the implications of the proposal brought forward and that we’ve accurately understood that intention, so then we can do further work to ensure accuracy for all.

Members may wish to take a brief moment at that point in the afternoon. We’ll do the best we can, in real time, to reflect those changes that have been shared this afternoon.

T. Stone: That was actually part of what I was going to ask about or suggest. I think this is, obviously, very well intentioned, but there’s a fair bit going on here.

I don’t know if I can ask the Government House Leader questions. It’s not question period, but it kind of is. Am I to understand, in this proposal, at a high level…? I do like the idea. I would support staff crunching these numbers and then coming back to us with what the budget implications are to Vote 1. I think we should all know that so that we know exactly what we’re voting on. But just at a high level, are we to understand that the proposal from government here, through this amendment, is to revert back to a CPI-driven increase to the constituency office funding?

That has been, historically, the practice. It has been an inflationary increase tied to CPI. It would appear….. That’s what it says here: accept the standard CPI increase.

There are a number of things, then, beyond that that it would appear government is willing to or wants to support. Those are listed here. There are three or four. Then there are a number of things, like removing the holiday card postage charge, a few things like that…. Government is indicating its desire to not support those changes.

I guess, number one, to the Government House Leader: is that an accurate reflection at a very high level? There is an estimate, which I can see here, that says…. If this amendment is accepted and incorporated into Vote 1 and moves forward, it would result in each MLA having an additional $15,500 to $21,000 added to the budget.

Where I’m going with all this is…. As I understand it, the current baseline that was noted in previous material, which was provided to the finance committee, certainly, on this was…. Constituency office budgets are about $150,000 right now. The CPI-driven increase and the additional items, the new constituency office funding model would move the total per MLA office up to about $184,000. I think that was based on a CPI of 7 percent, not 6 percent, which now seems to be the CPI number that is used as an assumption in the budget documents.

That would mean that the proposals that the government is suggesting here would result in the constituency office budgets increasing from $150,000 to either $165,500 or $171,000. The original proposal was for CPI and all these items, and that would increase the budget to $184,000. I just wanted, on the record, to make sure that, at a high level, that’s what we’re talking about here.

My final point would be…. My colleague likely has additional comments and questions too.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’ve been proposing that there be no increase to the constituency office budget this year, similar to MLA wages — that we take a pass this year on any increase and keep the level at the $150,000, or whatever the current amount is, recognizing the significant inflationary challenges that British Columbians are experiencing.

Our caucus, which represents most of the large geographic areas, have not reported back to us that they have significant challenges in serving their constituents’ needs and, therefore, all of these other items. The word that I brought forward previously to describe the change is “excessive.” We just feel it’s excessive. We would be more comfortable with and would continue to support a zero percent increase to the constituency office budgets for the forthcoming fiscal year. Obviously, that would get re-evaluated a year from now for the subsequent fiscal.

M. Babchuk: I just want to thank Artour for coming in again and putting forward what his recommendation was.

I’m actually not struggling with this amendment at all. We have heard from all sides of the House with MLAs. We heard it in the Electoral Boundaries Commission. We heard it everywhere that the scope and expansion of what the service levels and what constituent needs are in those offices is growing exponentially.

From my perspective, and I think Mr. Robitaille can account to this, there are occupational health and safety issues that are happening with staff if they work by themselves. There are extensive needs that are coming out that constituents are accessing these offices for.

I’m a little shocked, actually, Todd, that nobody in your caucus has mentioned that, because all through the Electoral Boundaries Commission, we heard that over and over again. What we’re looking at is not an increase in our pay but an increase in how we are able to deliver services to the constituents of what are supposed to be all of these non-partisan offices, right? I don’t have a problem with what this looks like. It actually helps the constituency office and the staff.

I’m totally on board without taking a raise for me. I get it. I totally get it. But the constituency offices, from all of the MLAs that I’m talking about, including members from your caucus, are starting to struggle a little bit with service delivery to those constituents, and I think this addresses it 100 percent.

A. Olsen: I guess what’s interesting about this discussion is that I agree with everything that has been said about the need in the constituency offices. The subcommittee did the work, reviewed the proposal and then agreed to put this in the budget, the numbers that we have in the current budget, because of all of that rationalization.

Then when we’re here at LAMC debating that budget, from what it appears…. I haven’t had a chance to analyze the actual impact this amendment has on what has been proposed. Just taking the official opposition House Leader’s mathematics here, basically, what the government is now proposing is about half of what was originally being proposed.

It has been explained by the government that all of the need is there. What has not been explained is why, at this juncture, only half the measure that was previously acceptable is now what is going to be the remedy. That has not been explained.

I’d like to hear from the Government House Leader, who tabled this, what the change was from the government’s perspective, if possible.

C. Oakes: Well, to be clear, when this was brought forward, our caucus voted…. We didn’t support it being brought forward, right? Just to be clear, it was on record. It’s not like it’s a surprise coming to this committee.

Our members come from some of the largest geographic areas. We sat down….This is taxpayer money. This is taxpayer money, and people are struggling right now in British Columbia. We said: “Are there things that we can do within our offices to continue to provide excellent service, in a non-partisan way, to our constituents?”

[2:25 p.m.]

Yes, we’ve had to look at our budgets, and we’ve had to make some decisions on how we can effectively do our jobs, recognizing it’s taxpayer dollars we’re spending here. At a time when British Columbians are struggling with affordability, should we be looking at such significant increases? That is why our caucus said, when it was brought forward at the subcommittee, that maybe this isn’t the time to be looking at these types of increases.

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are a bunch of comments we made. I appreciate that it’s much less than what was recommended in option 2, as was laid out by the staff, on what should be considered.

I go to my colleague Michele’s comments around the workload. I’m shocked to hear that some offices aren’t seeing an increased caseload, because the pandemic has been hard. What we’re dealing with and what communities and families are dealing with now, coming out of the pandemic, is hard. That need, actually, has increased in most of our offices.

I can table for the member…. It’s unfortunate they haven’t heard from their colleagues, but when they presented to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, one of the B.C. Liberal MLAs talked about it: “There are only three of us, more often busy every single day, including the weekends, trying to keep up with our workloads and trying to advocate for our constituents.” There were multiple members, actually, who had made those comments in public to the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

Fundamentally, the things we’ve removed are things that could be benefits for MLAs. We’re talking about getting rid of the geographic supplements that go to members. We’re talking about some additional costs that maybe are directed more towards individual MLAs but, at the same time, with the understanding that the needs in our offices have gone up. In the end, we stand up in the Legislature all the time and talk to our CAs and thank them for the work they do. They’re under huge stress, all of them. I know everybody here understands that.

This is about making sure they have the supports to do the work to support our citizens and our communities. I appreciate that in politics, there’s jousting about wages and all these things. That’s fine; that’s politics. But this is about serving the people of our communities and ensuring they have the supports they need to do so. That’s why this has been brought forward.

Again, I’m really thankful for the staff to go out and actually meet CAs and make sure that they’re heard in the recommendations that they brought forward. That’s why this has been brought forward in the way it has.

T. Stone: Not to belabour the point, but the very reason we are here is to discuss, debate and ultimately sign off on Vote 1, which goes forward to Treasury Board — Vote 1 being the expenditures of the Legislative Assembly for the forthcoming year. It is very much incumbent upon every member, reflecting the wishes of their caucus members, to come here.

I appreciate the Government House Leader’s suggestions that he may know our caucus members better than we do, and the needs and what’s going in the communities. I can assure him that that’s not the case.

Because this is a public meeting and because it’s important for British Columbians to know, the proposal — Adam was correct — on the constituency office funding model, which included a CPI increase and the additional amounts, which would bring the total constituency office budgets up from $150,000 per office to about $184,000 per office…. That $34,000 per office, multiplied across 87 offices, was just under $3 million of taxpayers’ money.

Likewise, we’ll appreciate the final calculations of finance staff so that we again know what we’re voting on today. Using the Government House Leader’s numbers from the amendment that he has tabled today, at the low end, his amendment suggests that the constituency office budgets would increase from $150,000 per to $165,500 per, which would represent about $1.35 million total across all 87 offices, and at the high end, it could increase the office budgets from $150,000 per to $171,000 per, which would be about a $1.8 million increase.

[2:30 p.m.]

All we’re saying is that, with the overall budget increase being nearly $13 million in terms of the overall ask from the Legislative Assembly as part of the Treasury Board process, when we’re looking at nearly $3 million for constituency office funding, it’s excessive. That is not to say that that’s any commentary on the work that’s being done in each constituency around the province. We all have great CAs. Everyone is doing the best they can with the resources that they have.

From the public’s perspective, against the backdrop of what’s going on from an inflationary perspective and the challenges that families are facing, our caucus feels it’s important to lead by example. That’s why we’ve consistently proposed that MLA wages be frozen for the forthcoming year and that this constituency office funding model….

While it may be well-intentioned, and there may be pieces of it that we could revisit in subsequent fiscal years, now is not the time to proceed with a multi-million-dollar increase to constituency office budgets, one of the largest increases on a year-over-year basis that I think the assembly has asked for and presumably will receive when the government votes this through, in many years.

That’s the point that we’re trying to make. Obviously, we’ll vote the way we’ll vote, and government will vote the way they’ll vote, and whatever the end result is, is what will happen. We’re just saying that now is not the time, in our humble opinion, for this size of an increase to constituency office budgets.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. I think we have heard both sides very clearly. Let’s have a health break, a recess, for ten minutes. Then we’ll come back, and we’ll continue.

The committee recessed from 2:31 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Let’s continue.

Kate, please.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Members, for this opportunity to present to you our ’23-24 Legislative Assembly Vote 1 budget submission.

I’m joined by a number of colleagues, many of whom have put substantive hours into the preparation of this presentation. I wanted to particularly thank Randy Smith, Andrew Spence, Manjit Bains, Artour Sogomonian and Daisy Jassar, as well as Ray Robitaille, Jesse Szczepanowski and Brent Lee, who are also here to help co-present with us today.

I know that the remaining time this afternoon is a bit limited, so at a high level, I will also give you an overview of some of the preliminary slides.

I wanted to begin with a thank-you to all of those members who have served on the various subcommittees, who have provided input and direction to help shape this budget submission and the presentation that we will be walking through in the next few minutes or so.

[2:50 p.m.]

The slides summarize the detailed submission of a formal document which was also circulated to members as part of your meeting materials package. For this agenda item, there are both the presentation slides and the formal budget submission that will be transmitted. The formal submission will be transmitted to the Ministry of Finance and will form, in time, Vote 1 of the ’23-24 provincial budget estimates.

The slides that follow…. I’m going to encapsulate, I think, a summary of a few of them, a recap as to how we have reached this point this afternoon, starting with the approval by the Legislative Assembly Management Committee of our first strategic plan.

This slide includes a number of touchpoints with various subcommittees. Alongside this engagement, we also had the opportunity to work carefully with our departments to establish some goalposts throughout the budget development process and also met with members of each caucus.

Thank you again, Members, for that input along the way. We look forward to the next steps, including a formal transmittal of the entire budget submission, all of the four subvotes, to the Minister of Finance in January.

The next slide provides a bit of a recap with respect to our organizational context. These slides were intended to provide a bit more background to members to recap some of the context in which we undertake our work.

I’ll ask my colleague Andrew to now walk us through our risk assessment strategy on the strategy documents that are captured in the next few slides.

Over to you, Andrew.

A. Spence: Thanks, Kate.

We have summarized our current state environmental scan in this diagram that’s on the next slide and walked members of the subcommittee on finance and audit through in detail at our last meeting. The factors summarized here relate to our parliamentary operations, economic, social and legal considerations and involve the technological and physical worlds we live in. All of these influenced our assumptions and our decisions on why we prioritized certain investments in our budget submission.

Next, we have summarized a familiar document for you, our strategic plan, here on a single slide, with hard copies available in front of you as well. This strategy was approved by LAMC earlier this year, and the key message here is that our strategy is driving our budgeting process with our areas of investment while aligned with the strategic priorities and the topics we’ve engaged our subcommittees on over the past few months.

Slide 10 provides a high-level summary of organizational risks for the Legislative Assembly across our four strategic goals. Each of these risks can have a significant impact on our ability to achieve our strategic goals, and each was carefully considered during our budget process within business cases for individual projects brought forward to help provide additional risk mitigation.

The analysis of these risks has informed the strategic investment areas that Kate will talk to next.

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

On our next slide, as Andrew mentioned, we’ve been working hard to identify and mitigate risks across the organization. The strategic investments on this slide have been prioritized with respect to the efforts of all assembly departments and also reflect the feedback from subcommittees. Our overarching intent here is to create a modern and nimble organization which is responsive to the needs and expectations of members, as well as to keep pace with the growing institution and organizational maturity.

The final slide I’ll speak to at this point is just an overview of the feedback that we received from our caucus engagement sessions. These are the messages that came through the listening exercise that we undertook a number of months ago and continue to do with you, our most important clients. Safety, security and service were our highest areas of priority need, and these investments, as well as others that enable us to deliver on commitments and priorities, will be the focus of the presentation this afternoon.

I’ll now invite my colleague, our executive financial officer, Randy Smith, as well as Michael Burke, director of financial services, to walk us through the more detailed components of our budget submission.

R. Smith: Thank you, Kate.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I would like to highlight the budget preparation principles. The budget this year focuses on the delivery of core services and risk-informed funding requests that are aligned with critical priorities and investments in the assembly strategic plan. Budget flexibility is important to ensure financial agility and to anticipate needs and be responsive throughout the year.

[2:55 p.m.]

The assembly must respond to inflationary pressures, changing market conditions, labour shortages, supply chain challenges, and staff recruitment and retention issues. Changes to staffing levels will be presented as an envelope of positions by functional area and will focus on building critical organizational capacity aligned to strategic priorities and key new investment areas.

Staff turnover will be addressed by proactively managing vacancies. Any residual savings from staff vacancies will be used to provide additional spending flexibility to address new and emerging priorities.

Savings identified in the fiscal ’23-24 year — from internal management capacity challenges; market conditions; availability of materials, contractors or professional services — will be closely monitored through a more robust monthly forecasting process. Management plans to redeploy any underspending from these areas to address other budgeted core service needs, expedite approved strategic initiative projects or accelerate the start of projects planned for future years.

The general assumptions in the budget are 6 percent CPI. I think it’s trending at 6.9 right now. Compensation-related funding is based on the recent GEU collective agreement, a parliamentary calendar of 80 days and increased committee activity.

The proportions of the overall operating budget by functional area are shown on this slide as well as the proposed changes over ’22-23, with inflationary effects playing the most significant factor in the change.

Operating budget components. Legislative support services include operational precinct departments, Sergeant-at-Arms, Hansard and Legislative Library. Caucus support services is formula-driven, based on the number and role of caucus and independent members. Members services is salaries, benefits, travel, and it includes constituency office operations, leasing, parliamentary committees, interparliamentary relations and internship program.

Amortization of capital assets is now shown separately, as assets are supporting all functions at the Legislative Assembly.

As we pass the next slide back to Kate, I wanted to ensure that the order of the slides is noted based on the feedback from the subcommittee on finance and audit. Members services will be presented last, as we discussed, to allow committee discussions.

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

As Randy mentioned, we’ll be standing down the members services of the budget for further analysis and assessment.

I’ll begin with an overview of the budget submission as it relates to the first subvote, legislative support services. This is the portion of the budget which supports the work of the Office of the Speaker and the 11 departments that comprise the Legislative Assembly administration. These include the Office of the Clerk, Parliamentary Committees Office, Hansard Services, Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms, information technology, human resources, financial services, our digital information office, the parliamentary education office, precinct services and the Legislative Library.

In order for our organization to deliver on our strategic priorities, address our growing expectations from members and for the need to build capacity, as well, to address some of the generational projects that Jesse has highlighted earlier today, as well as balancing our parliamentary responsibilities, we have requested an operating budget next year of $43 million.

We recognize the growth of $7 million is a considerable increase and have given this very careful consideration. On the next slide is an overview of the sources of this growth, in a variance analysis. This will be described in some detail in the slides that follow. Just like last year, the themes which anchor our budget submission are not one-time commitments but rather areas of focus that we are committed to delivering on and will continue to be a focus of our efforts and forward-looking investments for years to come.

First, we have identified investments associated with the modernization of the Sergeant-at-Arms department, as considered by the subcommittee on security in October. My colleague Ray will speak to that in a moment.

Secondly, as part of our commitment to service excellence and in response to the client relationship assessment completed earlier this year, we’ve developed a new approach, which Artour will describe, with respect to the establishment of a single-window client services department.

[3:00 p.m.]

To help successfully deliver on generational projects that stand in front of us while balancing operational commitments, we need to continue to build organizational capacity to plan and successfully execute on projects.

To achieve our goal to ensure a healthy workplace culture, we need to continue programs to support workforce planning and new measures to also enable our work with respect to our reconciliation commitment; employee engagement; a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility and learning throughout the organization. We also recognize that we need to continue to modernize the Legislative Assembly’s end-of-life infrastructure, including systems and technical debt.

The last driver in this variance analysis are the inflationary factors that we are all facing. These inflationary factors account for more than half the variance over last year’s budget. We can walk through those in more detail, and we’ll also be touching briefly on our efforts to offset these expenditures through cost-saving opportunities.

I’ll also note that we have a timing discount factor that accounts for the practical delays that we all experience with respect to achieving our intended outcomes, including recruitment lag, staff turnover, project delays and supply chain challenges.

Now I’ll invite my colleague Ray to begin with an overview of the key investment areas, starting with those under his area of leadership.

Thanks, Ray.

R. Robitaille: Thanks very much, Kate.

Over the past year we’ve done a comprehensive review of the security of the Legislative Assembly, and we’ve built on a number of reports that also fed into some recommendations on how to modernize the parliamentary protective services. From that, we’ve developed a five-year plan and, in broad strokes, broken it down into standard security, primarily located around the Legislative Assembly; new critical safety and security programs that address the emerging threats; and then adequate support to staff and a plan for future threats and risks that the Legislative Assembly, constituency offices and members face.

Some of the things that we’ve seen over the past four years are trends in increased online inappropriate communications — in 2017, 113. In 2022, we’re tracking to see anywhere between 325 to 350 investigations that range from minor inappropriate communications and cross into the threshold of criminal behaviour, where we work closely with our police-of-jurisdiction partners.

Other things that we have seen that are significantly taxing, in terms of time and resources, are increasing demonstrations — from, in 2018, having an average of 95 to, in 2021, reaching 279. Of those, approximately 40 were of a high-risk nature, so that we had to work very, very closely with the Victoria police department. In 2022, we saw nine weeks of the Island Freedom Convoy, which attempted to do what they called a bearhug around the Legislative Assembly, which again created a significant demand on our resources and on Victoria police department resources as well.

All of this necessitates the modernizing of our current model, which was more focused on standard security, to building out some critical safety programs. The one specifically dealing with members security — it’s the MLA safety program — introduced security assessments for all the constituency offices, as well as safety advice for your staff. We’re looking at emerging threats that are affecting members’ ability to do business, which includes protests at constituency offices and even extending to personal residences.

The other things that we’re also looking at in the critical safety and security program is shoring up the high-risk, low-frequency types of events that can occur at legislative assemblies. January 6 or 2014 at the national parliament would be examples of threats that we have to be prepared for, implementing a quick-response team that is capable of dealing with those complex, low-frequency events; as well as emergency management and major event planning for things such as earthquakes or the numerous demonstrations that I referred to.

With that, I will turn it over for any questions.

Mr. Speaker: Anybody? No.

[3:05 p.m.]

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): I’ll quickly talk about our plans for client services. This is a fairly significant business transformation and change undertaking, but we believe it’s the right thing to do and at the right time in our organization’s growth and maturity, as we’ve heard very clearly from members and from your staff that we need to do better to support you.

Part of what’s proposed with client services is this department playing a key role in linking and supporting members, constituency office staff and caucus staff to the services and supports provided by the administration through a single-window service delivery model. What that means is that you don’t have to go from place to place to find the services that you need to support you. You just phone one phone number or you email one email address, and a ticket will be created that will manage the workflows that might be required to assist you and your staff with whatever is required.

We’ll also, through client services, be establishing in-house capacity to manage the increasingly complex constituency office leasing portfolio, and, looking ahead to what we anticipate to be the 2024 provincial general election, this department will be established as the one-stop shop for all onboarding and off-boarding activities for members and their staff.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions? No? Okay.

Andrew.

A. Spence: Our next theme that we will talk about is around planning and project execution. Over the past year, we’ve come a long way in building capacity to make progress on organizational projects while balancing operations. For the coming year, we’re looking to add key capacity to support planning and project execution. This capacity is also driven by the internal audit recommendations tabled.

This planning and project execution capacity comes through the establishment of a project management office to provide air traffic control on organizational initiatives to better support members and constituency office operations as well as the initial preparation activities to ready the organization for the 2024 provincial general election and expanding committee research capacity to respond to increasing parliamentary committee activity.

Next, my colleague Daisy will talk about our focus on people and our goal of a healthy workplace culture.

D. Jassar: Having a healthy workplace culture is a priority for all of us. We aim to be a model employer by creating a welcoming workplace for employees where they can thrive and do their best work. Some of the organizational risk we are trying to address through the investments in this area is related to pressures created by the current job market and the difficulty the assembly, as well as many other organizations, are experiencing with recruitment and retention of skilled staff.

As such, we’re focusing our investments to build capacity to move from a reactive mode to a more proactive mode with regards to our talent management. We are working on a people plan focused on the entire employee life cycle, with the goal of creating a positive and supportive work environment for our staff. This includes the development of a dedicated HR adviser model, where our HR advisers are out working with specific departments to proactively address recruitment and retention as well as other talent management–related activities.

To highlight the importance of diversity, equity, accessibility and inclusion, we are creating a complementary DEIA plan to understand our employee experience, create a more welcoming work environment and build competencies and learning for our leaders and employees.

Part of this investment is also to build capacity to address the organizational risk we have with our payroll systems and functions.

Brent, over to you.

B. Lee: On to the next theme, digital and IT modernization.

As part of providing stability in our financial model of technology, a seven-year budget was created to modernize and sustain our infrastructure in the precinct and the constituency offices through our business case process. Harmonizing technology between the Sergeant-at-Arms team and my own has allowed a tactical approach to address technical debt related to life safety–related equipment, core business functions and security intelligence software.

In addition, to support the ongoing innovation with Hansard Services, we will continue to seek efficiencies to the continued funding of the automated speech recognition launched this fiscal and work towards retiring our integrated payroll system. Working with colleagues in finance and HR, we plan to address the findings related to the recent payroll internal audit by procuring a new system.

Over to you, Kate, on inflation and cost savings.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thanks, Brent.

This slide provides an overview of some of the inflationary pressures that are reflected in the budget submission, the first of which is the cost-of-living adjustments, particularly for the legislative administration staff.

[3:10 p.m.]

Our desire historically has been to maintain a competitive salary environment as aligned within the broader British Columbia public service, and while recent collective bargaining has resulted in significant BCGEU increases for the year ahead in the range of 5½ to 6½ percent, we’ve attempted to get in front of that challenge with an adjustment for this fiscal year as well as an adjustment for next year as well.

The COLA increase across the administration accounts for $2 million of our inflationary effects.

Additionally, like all British Columbians, we have also faced increasing energy costs. Many of you will know that the heritage Parliament Buildings here are heated by an off-precinct steam plant. Initial estimates for steam service from the province have increased by approximately 30 percent for the year ahead, or about $10,000 per month.

We’ve relied upon natural gas price forecasts, as well, for other utilities, such as electricity and water, to inform the budget plan and are anticipating that those will account for about a $420,000 increase, or 25 percent, to utilities, materials and supplies managed by our legislative facilities team.

We’ve also analyzed expenditures throughout the budget in an attempt to offset these inflationary effects wherever possible. We have implemented reductions related to business and office expenses across the board, and we will be providing direction to all of our departmental leaders to look for further cost-saving opportunities and administrative efficiencies throughout the year ahead.

I’ll look to Daisy to give us an overview of the next subvote, the respectful workplace office.

D. Jassar: Thank you, Kate.

The next section of our Vote 1 budget is the respectful workplace office. As members may recall, the RWO was created in 2020 and 2021 to support, promote and sustain positive workplace interactions between members, caucus staff, ministerial staff, employees of the Legislative Assembly and other participant groups that come under the respectful workplace policy. We continue to allocate $250,000 to this office.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): The next subvote is caucus support services.

Over to you, Mike.

M. Burke: For caucus support services, the chart shows five years of data. The blue bars represent approved budgets for prior years. The red line shows the actual results in those preceding years, and the yellow line is projected results for the current fiscal.

The budget request for caucus support services is $9 million, which represents an increase of $578,000, or 6.8 percent, as compared to the prior fiscal year. This budget is calculated each year using a formula approved by LAMC and in accordance with policy. The main driver for the budget formula is the number of members affiliated with each recognized caucus. The formula itself is what determines the total budget for each caucus.

For fiscal ’23-24, each caucus will receive approximately $105,000 per private member and $55,000 for each member who is part of the executive council. In addition, the Leader of the Official Opposition receives an allocation to fund a party leader’s office in accordance with policy.

This slide provides a breakdown of the budget featuring the three caucuses, breaking it down between the member calculation and the leaders’ offices. The numbers presented are reflective of current composition as of December 6, 2022.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I’ll mention then…. At this point, Members, we’ve covered the three subvotes. I understand, by agreement, there’s a desire to return to the members services subvote at a later time, but I just wanted to clarify that in terms of our approach going forward.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think that approach is fine.

I want to make a quick comment. A big thank-you to the staff for the work you’re doing here. I haven’t had a chance to sit in on these meetings before, but my colleagues have informed me that this proactive approach is not normal. I thought that’s…. I really appreciate the work that everyone is putting in to make sure that this is available.

We’re okay with the conversation about members services being moved to the new year.

It has been fascinating to come into this role and learn about the discussion when it comes to wages and the history that goes with this. Certainly, we know…. In 2007, an independent body was structured to look at how MLAs can be paid, an independent assessment of how MLAs can be paid. Of course, in 2020, we know…. We were going through a very challenging time in this province. Government decided, at that time, that we were not taking a pay increase.

[3:15 p.m.]

Our position, on the government side, will be…. We believe that LAMC should not administer the pay increase for the coming year. I just want to make sure members of the committee were aware of that position, and I’m certainly happy to have the vote in the new year if time doesn’t permit now.

T. Stone: Again, to the staff on all of the work and the presentations that have been done…. Having been through it on the finance committee, I asked a lot of questions there, so I didn’t want to repeat myself today, but I really appreciate the work that everyone does. I appreciate that the caucus support services budget will be adjusted to actually reflect the fact that, I believe, there are 29 members of the executive council now and — what? — 27 government caucus members. That obviously has implications on the funding. That’s all driven by formulas, in terms of other caucuses, and so forth.

Following on the Government House Leader’s comments with respect to the MLA wage increase for next year, I just want to say that the official opposition is thrilled that the government has come around and has made this decision, thus embracing what the official opposition has been calling for, for many months.

We have been making this argument. We introduced a private member’s bill in the Legislature to actually amend the Members’ Remuneration and Pensions Act. That’s the mechanism for adjusting the salaries which are, if nothing else is done, tied to inflation as per that particular act.

I’m pleased that the government has come to its senses on this. I think British Columbians, the thousands of people…. I know that all the members have been hearing from the same people that we have, the thousands of emails that we’ve received from British Columbians who’ve just said that this is not the time for an MLA wage increase in the range of…. We just heard moments ago that inflation for the purposes of calculating a range of budget items, not the least of which is MLA salaries, is more likely to be in the 6.9 to 7 percent range versus the 6 percent range, and it could be higher than that. That’s a good decision.

I would like to go one step further and suggest this committee actually provide direction to the Legislative Assembly. I’ll read out what I’ve got. I’ve got a copy of it that I’ll provide, but just to provide the context, these are the exact words that the former Government House Leader, Mike Farnworth, used in 2020, on March 31, in a two-minute LAMC meeting where it was determined, in light of the pandemic, that it was appropriate, amongst a range of other measures, for there to be no MLA salary increase going forward.

The motion that I would like to move at this point is: be it resolved that notwithstanding section 2(2) of the Members’ Remuneration and Pensions Act, RSBC 1996, c. 257, Legislative Assembly staff be directed to withhold the administration of the statutory increase to members’ basic compensation scheduled to come into effect on April 1, 2023, until such time that a statutory change in this regard may be brought forward for the Legislative Assembly’s consideration.

That’s the practical mechanism for ensuring that the direction is received by the Legislative Assembly staff with respect to LAMC’s intentions. I’m hoping it’s unanimous amongst all of the LAMC members. It would appear that that may be the case, although I don’t want to speak for my colleague to my left here.

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we go any further, we have already agreed to stand down the members services issue until the next meeting, so I don’t think this motion is in order.

T. Stone: Well, just to be clear, I did not agree to that.

Interjection.

T. Stone: No, no. To be clear, my exact words to the Clerk were that if we can get through the three other items and there is still time on the clock, then let’s come back to the members services. That’s what we’re here to do.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that. But we have also asked the staff to go through the numbers proposed by the Government House Leader and see what the implication may be on the overall budget. I would like them to come back and tell us where it would be in a couple of weeks or as soon as possible to see…. Then we can make a final decision, if it’s necessary or not.

T. Stone: There is nothing to calculate when you’re proposing a zero percent increase for members’ salaries, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It’s part of the….

T. Stone: I understand the rest of it. I still think that if there’s time on the clock, we should get into it as far as we can.

[3:20 p.m.]

This is a standalone item that, frankly, has nothing to do with the broader issues of the caucus budget that the members services proposal which the Government House Leader brought in here at the last minute, at the start of this meeting. That does have significant implications for the members services budget.

The MLA wage increase. We could provide that direction very clearly to the Legislative Assembly staff. That would also be a signal to Treasury Board. We heard how grateful Treasury Board would be to receive as much direction as possible today.

I don’t see the practical rationale for why we can’t and shouldn’t move forward with the motion here, in the words of the former Government House Leader, the last time that this was done.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, we did agree that we’d move members services to later. I don’t think a vote in the new year would impact the wages at all, because it’s still done before the time that’s required. We’re actually happy to do it now. Our position has been clear.

Just as he has mentioned, the House Leader…. The House Leader brought the motion in 2020. We did this in 2020. Certainly, we think, again….

People are struggling right now. We’re fine with the vote happening now, if we can make the time permit.

Mr. Speaker: Todd has moved this motion. Let me read it for clarification.

It says: be it resolved that notwithstanding subsection 2(2) of the Members’ Remuneration and Pensions Act, RSBC 1996, c. 257, Legislative Assembly staff be directed to withhold the administration of the statutory increase to the members’ basic compensation scheduled to come into effect on April 1, 2023, until such time that a statutory change in this regard may be brought forward for the Legislative Assembly’s consideration.

Do we have a seconder? It has been seconded.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Since we were able to accommodate that, we would like to now also bring forward the community office allowance issue and deal with that before the time is up as well.

We would move that the amended option that we’ve proposed be considered now.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. It has been moved and seconded.

T. Stone: Can we do that on division so that it’s noted? Our concern is that we don’t understand…. We don’t know what we’re actually voting on, because this was brought in at the last minute.

Mr. Speaker: Yeah. It was approved on division.

Motion approved on division.

T. Stone: I would also point out that this memo that the Government House Leader brought in actually is…. It refers to NDP COs. It’s got partisan terminology in it.

Mr. Speaker: That needs to be corrected.

T. Stone: We’re prepared to stay here for the next two or three hours if we need to today — we’re all here — to actually go through this and approve this and understand what the implications are. But we’re not going to vote for something that we….

It’s clearly based…. It’s a memo that informed one particular caucus here, the government caucus, and not the other caucuses, and we don’t know what the calculations and the impacts are, with all due respect.

Mr. Speaker: Do you want to clarify your intention? The intent is that it applies to all.

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s right. Correct. Of course.

A. Olsen: For the record, in support of the motion, had this been a motion that was going to adjust the compensation for community offices above what we had already agreed to at the subcommittee level, I would share the concerns that my colleagues in the official opposition have raised. However, since what is being proposed here is a reduction….

While I’m still concerned about the quality of support that our constituents are getting and feel that the increase that we agreed to at the subcommittee stage was justified, I’m prepared to move this forward, considering that we’re not looking at an increase to what had already been previously agreed to in a committee.

[3:25 p.m.]

C. Oakes: Again, it goes back to the concerns I’ve raised in the past, where we don’t have adequate time to properly review documents such as this.

For us, what it’s saying is that for the NDP constituency offices…. Look, I know that you brought forward an amendment to that. But how do we possibly suggest that we’re going to support something that clearly documents that you’re supporting only the NDP constituency offices?

I get that. Had we had time to go through a normal process, where we are actually…. This will now become part of the members services guidelines and policy resource guide. This will become a part of that. We haven’t had time to adequately, in a subcommittee, process this. Come tomorrow, each of us is going to start getting calls from our caucuses to actually identify how we are going to process this from an administrative process. I really don’t know how to answer those questions.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, we still have three more votes to deal with. We have motions. Why don’t we conclude those. This motion has already been passed now. If we still have a few minutes left, then we will talk about it.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): For the clarification of members, we’re grateful for the direction that has been provided with the adoption of those two motions today.

As noted earlier, Randy Smith and Michael Burke will depart this meeting with the opportunity to do some further analysis. We will recalculate the members services budget so that we can bring forward the clarity, for all members, with respect to the changes from the original submission. We will be seeking an opportunity to have further discussion from members on those proposed changes as well as a formal decision on that subvote. The members services subvote will come back to the committee.

With the remaining time available, if it’s desirable, Mr. Chair, I did want to invite our colleague Jesse Szczepanowski to address briefly the capital budget.

Then there could be an opportunity for a decision, perhaps, on the three subvotes that we touched on earlier this afternoon, Mr. Stone.

T. Stone: Just for absolute clarification, are we to understand that this government amendment has been adopted? Notwithstanding the fact that the final calculations are made…. There are ranges. It refers, in a partisan manner, to NDP constituency offices. That has been adopted, but Legislative Assembly staff are going to come forward in January with the actual calculations that reflect the implications of what the Government House Leader has brought forward today.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Yes, that is my proposed approach.

T. Stone: Okay, I’ll just say this. That’s not how this place is supposed to work. We’re not supposed to be adopting things that don’t have finalized numbers and then come back a month later with finalized numbers. That’s not how this is supposed to work.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s go to Jesse.

J. Szczepanowski: We have only two minutes left, so maybe we’ll skip ahead to just the capital overview slide.

Let’s look at the capital request at a high level here. It’s summarized around a few programs. There are four programs here, which include major capital infrastructure or building improvements; IT infrastructure; minor capital, which includes specialized equipment and furniture; as well as a contingency. You’ll see on the slides there that we do have a three-year outlook as well, but I do want to note that the three-year outlook does not include those new construction projects which we addressed earlier in today’s meeting.

Touching on the major capital at a very high level, we will continue to be working on the long-term infrastructure renewal plan, which will include building assessments for finalizing a strategy for our central heating plant, as well as continue to be working on the conceptual design phases of the Armouries building as well as now the conceptual planning on a child care facility.

Some of the visible projects that you and the public will see over the next year include the front stairs stabilization project, fire exits and fire suppression projects as well as completing a physical security review.

I’ll pass it over to my colleague Brent, really briefly, to touch on IT infrastructure projects as well as to finish off on minor capital.

B. Lee: Thanks, Jesse.

The infrastructure related to systems has seen a significant proactive planning process and moved to a multi-year cycle, guiding consistent and predictable forecasting.

[3:30 p.m.]

In a partnership with my friends in the Sergeant-at-Arms leadership team, we’re working closely to roadmap technology solutions to ensure the public, the members and their constituency assistants are protected and safe.

The senior leadership team in my department has begun in-person engagement with 22 of our 87 constituency offices in my first year in the building. These engagements allow Ray and me to develop KPIs in delivering services and systems.

On the minor capital project, as our organization and society pivots from the events of the last three years, grounding our direction in a proactive mindset to address space demands in the future is key, both with technology and space. The minor capital program prepares us to embrace the modern workplace and increase workplace density.

J. Szczepanowski: I’ll just finish off by just noting that there is 500,000 for contingency as well, which will support all other program areas for the capital program.

Over to you, Andrew.

A. Spence: I think we’re just going to flip ahead to our next steps here in terms of looking forward and continually improving on how we deliver on our planned investments. It’s a significant area of focus for our executive team with new and ongoing activities related to governance, leadership tools, resourcing and reporting.

With that, I think Kate….

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you, colleagues, for concluding the remaining components of the presentation.

Just further with respect to the process being suggested for the committee this afternoon, Artour is kindly circulating potential motions for your consideration, which would result in the approval of the three subvotes. The two motions that were adopted earlier today will help inform Legislative Assembly staff, and I understood that direction to apply across the board to all that are covered by the members services proposed salary adjustments as well as all constituency offices.

We will work with the financial services team to bring forward a recalculated budget submission on the subvote for members services. It will include the proposal brought forward by Mr. Stone with respect to the adjustment to members’ salaries as well as the changes being proposed as the subject of the motion a few moments ago put forward by the Government House Leader that will inform the calculations and the new analysis of the members services budget line.

I think that’s important because there may be implications or additional questions that arise in our minds, and we want to ensure that we bring the best possible submission back to the committee looking at that taking place in January of 2023.

If the committee is prepared to either further consider or to consider and vote upon the motions just circulated, we’ll complete any of that business that we can this afternoon, but we’re very much in the hands of members as to how you’d like to proceed at this point.

C. Oakes: Not for today, but could you bring back, under the legislative support services, the removal of the one-time notional contingency allocations and what that looks like? I don’t need it now, but in the future, I just wanted to flag that removal of contingencies, and we’ve heard some projects today that have contingencies. I’m just trying to figure out what that looks like.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Is that something we can do, Jesse? Okay, thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, now we have a couple of motions to deal with. The first motion…. Let me read it then.

Members have it, but let’s read it for the record:

[That the estimates of expenditure for operating expenditures in Legislative Support Services, Respectful Workplace Office, Caucus Support Services, and capital expenditures, for fiscal year 2023-24 for the Legislative Assembly for Vote 1 be approved, as amended.]

Motion approved.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Sorry to interrupt, with just a point of clarification. The proposal as amended was intended to reflect the changes to the caucus funding formula that resulted from the December 7 cabinet changes. That is a formula-based calculation, and you will have noted, in the comments and materials that Mike was addressing, that it was prepared on December 6. That was our meeting materials circulation.

I just wanted to clarify for members that that is the portion being amended.

Thank you, Members.

[3:35 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: That’s clear? Okay, let’s move to the next motion.

It reads:

[That the Speaker transmit the estimates of expenditure for operating expenditures in Legislative Support Services, Respectful Workplace Office, Caucus Support Services, and capital expenditures, for fiscal year 2023-24 for the Legislative Assembly for Vote 1, as amended, to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Committee.]

Motion approved.

A. Olsen: I think, reflecting on the comments that were made by the Opposition House Leader, that in the future…. We had done a considerable amount of work to get to today. In fact, we had done little work in comparison to the staff, who have done a lot of work. On some of these issues, we’ve sent staff back to the drawing board a couple of times. Now we are at this stage of the of the discussion, on December 13, and we’re presented with something that lacked clarity.

I think that what it has done to this whole entire budget process is that it has made it more difficult than the clarity that’s needed for the Minister of Finance. I just ask that in considering how we go forward, it would be, I think, appropriate to use notices of motion, to use formal motion papers, so that we can be clear on what it is that is being considered.

I think it’s just kind of respectful of all the members, that that’s the way we’re approaching it, giving the members of the committee as much time as possible to consider the decisions. I recognize that government is in a bit of a transition right now, but honestly, I think we need to be able to….

This would not be acceptable in the chamber. You have to put motions on a motion paper. You have to sign it. You have to give it. I think that making sure that we’re following those processes and procedures helps with maintaining the confidence of the public and allows us to do our job better.

Financial Statements

Mr. Speaker: We have one more item left, I think, that would help the Ministry of Finance and the staff — the 2021-22 financial statement recommendation from the subcommittee on finance and audit.

Kate, do you want to take us through this quickly?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Just very briefly, and I know Randy is available too, for any questions.

We have a recommendation from the subcommittee to approve the 2021-22 financial statements for your approval. They have been reviewed, as well, by the Office of the Auditor General. I’m very pleased to anticipate a clean audit result will be attached to these. A lot of work has gone into the preparation of the statements and the accompanying management discussion and analysis by the financial services team, so my sincere thanks to them.

Just with an eye to the clock, I’ll briefly ask Randy if he would like to make any comments on this item.

R. Smith: Yes. The ’21-22 financial statements will have a clean audit opinion from the Auditor General. There were no significant financial findings reported. The financial statements are appended by a management and discussion analysis report, which provides an overview of the financial statements. Some financial analysis provides an update on risk management and business continuity planning. There’s also a forward-looking discussion to support the financial statements.

Mr. Speaker: Any comments, any questions, clarification? No.

The motion is that the financial statements of the Legislative Assembly for the year ending March 31, 2022, be approved as presented.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, that’s wonderful.

Any other business? No.

The motion is to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 3:39 p.m.