The committee met at 1:11 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: First, welcoming back the Hon. Jagrup Brar, who is here today as the designate of Nicholas Simons, in accordance with section 2(4) of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act.

Thanks, Jagrup, for coming.

Approval of Agenda and Minutes

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

Any changes to the agenda as circulated? None.

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

Moved and seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Item 2, review and approval of the draft minutes of the December 13, 2022, meeting of the committee.

Any changes to the minutes on December 13?

If not, may I have a motion to approve the minutes of December 13 as circulated.

Moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, item 3 is an update from the Clerk.

Kate, please.

Clerk’s Update

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do have a brief update today as we prepare for the resumption of sittings on February 6.

All Legislative Assembly staff are very much looking forward to the opening of the new session and just supporting you all with your parliamentary duties. In the weeks ahead, I wanted to share with you that we’ve designated January as employee engagement month for Legislative Assembly staff. We have a number of important engagements planned for this month.

We’ll be hosting an all-staff meeting later in January. As well, we will be asking employees for their feedback on several important initiatives that are currently underway that connect to our priorities in our annual strategic plan. First, we’ll be hosting open houses to receive staff input on the creation of our first diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility plan for the administration. This DEIA plan is one of the key initiatives outlined in our strategic plan under the goal of a healthy workplace culture. I’m excited to see this work get underway and look forward to the input and feedback from staff.

We’ll also be hosting a series of open houses again to seek employee feedback on the refresh of our strategic plan for the upcoming new fiscal year. We’re looking at the plan, particularly the key initiatives, to ensure that we’re on the right track for 2023-24. I’ll be looking forward to bringing to this committee the renewed ’23-24 strategic plan for your consideration and approval, hopefully in time for the opening of the new fiscal year.

[1:15 p.m.]

I’ll also note that we’ve recently updated the Members’ Guide to Policy and Resources to reflect decisions that have been made by your committee. These are changes that I communicated by way of an email to all members at the end of December. Just to recap, with respect to flights, our travel guidelines on airfare have been modified on a permanent basis to permit the reimbursement of prepaid flights for in-province travel. With respect to car sharing, travel guidelines have been amended to include car-share expenses as an eligible business expense, reimbursed with any receipt for a business trip.

Events by donation. We’ve updated the eligible and ineligible expenses table for constituency office expend­itures to reflect that members’ attendance at community events by donation is an eligible business expense. We’ve also updated guidelines for constituency office communications.

As I communicated in my email at the end of December, we’ve also had a recent change to our mileage reimbursement rate, which is now increased to 57 cents per kilometre, effective January 1, 2023. This aligns with the recent change with respect to the provincial government rate.

Those changes have now been incorporated onto the website. I’m happy to take any questions that you might have, or if your colleagues have any questions in the weeks ahead with respect to these matters, please don’t hesitate to contact any member of the financial services team.

That concludes my update.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions for Kate?

Thank you, Kate.

All right. Then we’ll move on to item No. 4, the members services portion of the 2023-24 Vote 1 budget submission.

Vote 1 Budget 2023-2024

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Mr. Chair, it’s nice to see you now. Your technology is working well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the committee. I will be shortly inviting Randy Smith, our executive financial officer, and Michael Burke, our director of financial services, to lead the committee through the revised members services budget as presented to this committee.

There’s always a great deal of work that goes into preparing any budget information and, in this case, amending budget information for a finalized Vote 1 budget submission. I’m very grateful to Randy and Mike and their team for their work to prepare these changes.

I’ll start off with the next slide and then pass the floor over to Randy.

On this slide, we present a recap of the approvals provided by the committee with respect to operating expenditures for a number of portions of the budget for the fiscal year ahead, ’23-24. They included decisions with respect to legislative support services, the independent respectful workplace office and caucus support services.

The committee also approved capital expenditures for Vote 1 for the fiscal year and requested that we return with some amendments, some revisions to the members services portion of the Vote 1 submission, which is really the focus of the discussion this afternoon.

I’ll now ask Randy to pick up the presentation and to walk us through the changes that have been incorporated into the submission.

R. Smith: Thank you, Kate and Mr. Speaker, and members of the committee.

This slide highlights the budget impacts of the December 13 LAMC decisions regarding the members services budget. As a result of the committee decisions, member services revised budget submissions will reflect the following: no change in basic compensation for MLAs. Constituency office allowance, capital city living allowance and in-constituency staff travel allowance increased at an assumed CPI rate of 6 percent.

There’s a health care spending account for constituency assistants, not for MLAs. Elimination of the constituency assistants benefits chargeback of 7.95 percent against the constituency office allowance. Costs are now carried cen­trally.

[1:20 p.m.]

The budget submission does not reflect the decision to increase the reimbursement cap for short-term illness and disability for constituency assistants to $4,670 from the current $2,000. Based on usage trends, these costs are anticipated to be covered within the existing appropriation based on usage. There are no other changes as compared to the prior year’s budget.

I’ll turn this over to Mike Burke to review the variances from the previous year’s budget.

M. Burke: Thank you, Randy.

This current slide before you shows the primary drivers of the $800,000 increase in the members services budget and are as follows.

Inflation-based impacts. Inflation impacts affect members’ capital city living allowances and constituency office allowances.

Member compensation increases are set for legislation, based on a year-over-year change in the annual B.C. CPI as of December 31. However, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee approved no increase to member compensation for the upcoming fiscal year.

For budget purposes, we’ve estimated the CPI increase to be 6 percent. We will know the actual amount in mid- to late January 2023, once the information is released by B.C. Stats. The total incremental impact to the budget for these inflationary adjustments is $700,000.

The second category is CO staff benefits. This includes CO staff benefits which are now charged essentially, versus previously against the CO allowance. The total incre­mental impact to the budget for these benefit cost changes is $900,000.

The third category is savings. This includes operational savings and the removal of one-time costs related to the constituency office network refresh project. The total of these savings is a net reduction of $1.2 million.

The final category includes other incremental costs. These include the introduction of a health care spending account for CO staff and the CO security standardization project. The total incremental impact to the budget is $400,000.

Moving on to the next slide, the total budget request for members services is $45 million. That’s an increase of $800,000, or 1.8 percent, as compared to the prior fiscal year. Members services includes several categories of expense, including members’ allowances, members’ constituency office support, travel, funding to support parliamentary committees operations, an interparliamentary relations budget to enable professional development oppor­tunities for members and the legislative internship program.

I’ll now turn it back to Randy to discuss the members services budget breakdown.

R. Smith: Thanks, Mike.

This pie chart shows the major components of the members services budget. Members’ salaries are $10.8 million; the CO allowance, $13.9 million; members’ benefits, $5.3 million; and CO leasing, another major component, is $6.3 million, for a total of $43.35 million. Plus $530,000 for the legislative intern program, $859,000 for parliamentary committees and $279,000 for interparliamentary relations, for a total of $45 million.

We’re happy to take any questions now on the makeup of the members services budget.

Mr. Speaker: Members, any questions for Randy?

A. Olsen: Less a question and more a comment. I appreciate reviewing the changes that were made from the process that these committees, the legislative management committees as well as subcommittees, had worked through.

The requests were made to our staff to come up with a new formula for funding constituency offices in the province. That work was done. We had gone through that work extensively. Then, at the very last possible moment, we were brought, I guess you could call it, a proposal. It was a piece of paper that was….

[1:25 p.m.]

There was no notice given about the potential change to debate the impact that that was going to have on the work that had already been done. It wasn’t even a formal motion outlining the changes and the impact of those changes for us to be able to debate or even to consider.

This is brought forward in the context of members services, specifically with the constituency offices. I’m separating bullet point 1 here, no change to basic MLA compensation, out from the rest of my comments.

The constituency offices are largely seen…. It’s my experience that those are services to support MLAs. In fact, this is part of MLA services. That’s how it’s framed. But I think that’s a wrong framing. I really think that the constituency offices here are to serve and support consti­tuents accessing government services.

These funds…. What we’ve done here is actually said to constituents, by even entertaining the single piece of paper that was put in front of us after all the work had been done…. By even entertaining that, what we said was that we’re prepared to undermine the service our constituency assistants and advocates give to the people of British Columbia who are trying to navigate often complex, bureaucratic and administrative bodies.

It said: “Look, we’re going to undervalue; we’re going to undermine that; we’re going to politicize that important non-partisan work in helping the most vulnerable people in our society navigate complex bureaucracies.” It was brought forward in the context of a discussion around what MLAs are being paid.

This is what gets me so frustrated about the way that this was brought forward and the framing of this discussion. This is not about…. It’s wrong for us to think that constituency offices are there to support MLAs. They’re there for MLAs to provide better support for their communities, which is our job.

For a long time, the framework of how the constituency offices were funded needed to be reviewed, and in fact, we sent Artour and asked Artour to do a comprehensive review of that. We had collaborated through that process right till this last bit of work that was done back in December, if you can call it that.

So it’s very frustrating, the way this has been framed. It’s very frustrating with the way the context of this has…. Yes, it is an expense, but it’s not an expense that I think we, as legislators, need to be ashamed of. This is an expense and an investment in providing better, more responsive services to our constituents.

I just want to very clearly articulate that what happened in December was that was politicized. That was made to be seen to be a dirty act. It was an MLA service, when really it was how MLAs serve their communities, how they communicate with their communities, ensuring that there are adequate resources to do a good enough job, ensuring that the constituency advocates and assis­tants can get paid a living wage and are able to survive under the extreme pressures that they’re facing.

It’s to make sure that when a constituency advocate has been under pressure for weeks on end trying to navigate these on behalf of their constituents, they have access to the resources and we, as MLAs, have access to the resources to support those constituency assistants and advocates that we ask to do very difficult work.

So I reject this change. I think that it’s wrong-headed in its approach. It’s unfortunate that it was brought forward the way it was without the benefit of discussion or debate that happened in advance of this. Like I said at the meeting in December, I think the way it was brought forward was very unprofessional. No motion. It didn’t lay out any explanation of what it was. It wasn’t even designed necessarily for our committee to be able to actually understand what it was that was being proposed.

[1:30 p.m.]

So here we are, and a decision was made to proceed with it. I feel it necessary to be able to say that I think we need to reframe the constituency offices so that they are consti­tuent services rather than MLA services. I really think that what we need to do is invest in constituency offices, and I raise my hands to the work that was done and the way it was framed by Artour and our Clerk’s staff.

I’m very disappointed in where this really good work that was done has gone. I think we’ve done a disservice to ourselves. We’ve done a disservice to our constituents, all in the name of…. We don’t want to be seen to be increasing our wages or increasing our benefits to MLAs.

In doing so, what have we done? We’ve undermined the services that we provide our constituents, and we need to be very clear that that’s what we’re doing here. We limit and change the framework, which we’d agreed to finally revisit, and to update and upgrade the way our constituency offices are funded.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Adam, for your comments.

Anybody else want to say anything?

T. Stone: Happy new year to everyone. On behalf of the official opposition caucus, I wanted to just say, for the record, that we very much appreciate the work that the finance team has done in doing the analysis on the changes that were brought forward by the Government House Leader at our meeting prior to Christmas.

I do share some of the concerns the member for Saanich North and the Islands has raised about just how those changes were brought forward. I certainly would hope, moving forward, if faced with a similar situation again, that that kind of last-minute change could be done with a bit more notice and, perhaps, with an analysis of the financial impacts of changes determined ahead of time.

But that being said, the meeting rolled out the way it rolled out, and we did end it by understanding that staff would go through the proposed changes and would bring back the analysis on those changes for our consideration today. The materials were sent out earlier this week, and I think we’ve had time to digest it.

As an official opposition, we’ll support these changes again, as they’re proposed here today. We’re very pleased that the government moved on what we’ve called for, for quite some time, about there not being a change in the basic compensation for MLAs for this forthcoming fiscal year — recognizing, as a show of support and understanding, a lot of British Columbians that would not be receiving thousands of dollars of wage increases in one fell swoop.

We were not supportive of the new constituency funding model — not because there wasn’t a tremendous amount of work that was done on it or that it didn’t look at some interesting changes to how we fund our offices. But just overall, taken as a complete package, in our opinion, it seemed to be excessive. It seemed to be a bit too much, again considering the backdrop of the struggles that British Columbians are facing right now.

We certainly never conflated the MLA salary piece with the constituency office funding model. The constituency office funding model is about serving one’s constituents. We all want to do that as best we can, and we’re always looking for ways to improve.

I think that the proposals that are on the table at this point do provide for it. If it does end up being a 6 percent CPI, or somewhere thereabouts, it will lift the constituency office operations budget by about $632,000. Spread over 87 offices, it works out to about a $7,000 lift per constituency office. The in-constituency staff travel allowance also will be modestly increased as part of these changes.

[1:35 p.m.]

I do think that there are some enhancements that are being provided, as part of this budget submission, that will enable all of us and our colleagues to better serve our constituents, and the overall lift in the budget for members services is no longer excessive, in our opinion. It’s much more in line, I think, with public expectation of a 2 percent lift, as opposed to what was previously proposed as a 12 percent lift.

I’ll end my comments there and just, again, say thank you very much to the finance team that has done some very, very good work. I know that the proposed changes required some work, probably over some holidays and whatnot, to calculate and analyze the stuff to be ready for the meeting today. I very much appreciate everyone’s efforts on that front.

G. Begg: Happy new year, everyone. Nice to see everyone again.

I want, perhaps, to change the tenor of the conversation just a bit by acknowledging the tremendous amount of work that has been done to arrive where we are today. I think that it has been a thoughtful, inclusive process that is geared toward enhancing the services that constituency offices provide to the community. I think that Adam…. At least he said all of the words that I like to hear when we talk about constituency offices, which is advocacy and navigation and non-partisan work.

The work that we do in…. There’s a big sign in my office that says: “This is your community office.” My staff understand completely that our job is to advocate on behalf of constituents whether they voted for me or not. We’re a non-partisan office, and the work that we do is tremen­dously important.

I think the spark for much of the changes that we’re anticipating here is partially due to a bold step by administration — Artour, in particular — to go out and to look around constituency offices to get a sense and a feel for what it is that is done. I think there is no disagreement between any of us here, or I haven’t heard any voiced, that the work that is done in constituency offices is important and integral to the community.

Times are tough all across the province for everyone, and that, to some degree, enhances the need for a greater service. So I think we’re on the same page. I don’t want to wax on eloquently about how valuable they are because I think we agree on that.

Kudos, despite, perhaps, some of the suggestions that have been made to the contrary. I think the staff are exemplars of leadership and a willingness to look around, for lack of a better term, to do a scan to make sure that they’re aware of what is done in the community offices. This next step that we’re approaching quickly is a very logical and, I would say, conservative step that merely enhances in each and every case the ability of MLAs to meet the needs of constituents.

Mr. Speaker: Anyone else? Okay.

If not then, Artour, I think we need a motion.

Okay, the first motion reads:

[That the estimates of expenditure for operating expenditures in Members’ Services for fiscal year 2023-24 for the Legislative Assembly for Vote 1 be approved, as presented.]

May I have a mover.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have another motion, Artour?

The second motion of the committee is:

[That the Speaker transmit the estimates of expenditure for operating expenditures in Members’ Services for fiscal year 2023-24 for the Legislative Assembly on Vote 1, as presented, to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Committee.]

May I have a mover, please.

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

[1:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Now we go to any other business.

Wow, that was quick. Happy new year. It’s wonderful to see you all. I’m so looking forward to seeing you again on February 6. We’ll have a wonderful session. Looking forward to it.

Adam, you had your hand up.

A. Olsen: Yeah. I launched into my comments without wishing you a happy new year first. So happy new year second. How about that.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you so much.

All of your comments, from everyone, have been very thoughtful. Thank you very much.

If there’s no other business, then we can have a motion to adjourn.

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 1:41 p.m.