The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Approval of Agenda and Minutes

Mr. Speaker: I am calling the meeting to order. This meeting is being conducted here on December 13, 2023.

The first item on the agenda is approval of the draft agenda which was circulated earlier.

Is there any change to it? No amendments, no changes, no nothing. Okay.

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

Moved. Seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Next item on the agenda is approval of the draft minutes of the October 30, 2023, meeting of this committee.

Any changes to the minutes? I don’t see any hand up. Okay.

May I have a motion to approve it.

Motion to approve. Seconded.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Then we go to item No. 3. That would be update from the Clerk.

Kate.

Clerk’s Update

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Good afternoon, Members. I don’t have a formal update prepared this afternoon, but given this is the final meeting of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee for this year, I thought it’d be appropriate to formally acknowledge and thank all of the staff of the Legislative Assembly administration for their hard work throughout the year.

I know the fall sitting period also brings with it a high level of activity with respect to our parliamentary operations, but in addition to those teams that we see and interact with regularly in the chamber and also within our parliamentary committees, there’s an incredible amount of dedication and professionalism that is demonstrated each day by our remarkable staff.

To each of them and to each of our departments, I just wanted to take this opportunity to express on behalf, I’m sure, of the committee and Mr. Speaker our collective appreciation for their good work throughout the year.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Any discussion, any questions, any comments?

We have wonderful staff. That’s great.

All right. Item No. 4, 2023-24 quarter 2 financial update.

Kathy.

Consideration of
Quarterly Financial Statements

K. Humphrey: This report for quarter 2 is for the period ending September 30. It’s a little bit more timely, as we haven’t even yet reached the end of quarter 3, so that’s good.

We have moved to the end of the second quarter, and the assembly continues to make progress on key initiatives and operational activities. The assembly administration continues to work on developing a more robust process for monitoring and projections and continues to make some edits to our report to reflect this.

From the operating side, at the end of quarter 2, we are projecting just over a $700,000 underspend across all the areas, primarily due to wages and benefits, reduced travel, and offset by an increase in some professional fees.

Some of the overspend that you see in a few of the departments was for projects that were initially budgeted to be capital but have since been identified, for accounting purposes, to be operating. These are being offset by savings in other areas.

In the general fund, the amortization is projected to be higher than initially budgeted, which is also contributing to the higher amortization requirements, which you will see in the budget presentation which comes next.

On the capital side, as we noted in Q1, last year the Legislative Assembly started on the first of many multi-year capital projects which are required to ensure that the assembly can continue to operate on the precinct. The front stairs project, as you know, is already complete, and the rear fire escape project continues to face some supply chain delays but is moving along.

However, quarter 2 reflects the completion of these projects, which began in the prior year and were not budgeted for ’23-24. Although administration has deferred a few of our current projects to the next year to offset these costs, the assembly is still projecting an overspend in capital of $1.6 million. We will revisit this at the end of Q3 once some more scheduling timelines are known.

The quarter 2 forecast reflects that these projects are going ahead with completion in the current year, which is really the driving force behind this overspend in capital that is projected. We continue to work with the Ministry of Finance to develop a process to allow for better multi-year budgeting and projects to be funded across our assembly projects.

[1:10 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Any questions for Kathy?

Kathy, I have a question. In one of your charts, where it says “2023-24 operating expenditures by function,” you outline all the caucuses at the top, their budget forecast and all that. Then you say the Conservative Party of B.C. amount there. Then it’s the independent, Rustad. Why…? Is it before they formed their…?

K. Humphrey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The independent…. Our budget shows any money that was allocated at any point in time throughout the year. That reflects the portion of time before there was the movement.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else? Any clarifications? None. Thank you very much.

Let’s move on to item No. 5 on the agenda, 2024-25 Vote 1 Legislative Assembly budget submission, with recommendations from the subcommittee on finance and audit.

Kate, and your team.

Vote 1 Budget 2024-2025

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and Members. It is our honour to present the ’24-25 Vote 1 budget submission for your consideration today.

The year ahead, ’24-25, will be an important and significant one for our Legislative Assembly. The year ahead will see us focus on the planning and transition supports related to the upcoming 43rd provincial general election, ongoing progress on significant special projects and initiatives, many of which are transformational for the Legislative Assembly. In addition, there will be ongoing acti­vities and investments to support the implementation of the final year of our three-year organizational strategic plan.

Today’s submission represents many hours of work on behalf of my colleagues on the financial services team, and I wanted to thank them for their efforts to date. They have reviewed carefully and assessed each of the investments that are being recommended to you today.

I also wanted to thank members of the subcommittee on finance and audit who received this budget submission and reviewed it in detail on November 21 and recommended it to your committee for your consideration today.

At that November 21 meeting, we provided the subcommittee with a detailed overview of the opportunities, challenges, organizational risks that we see in our environment in order to ensure that our assumptions and proposals in this submission aligned with the expectations of our subcommittee members.

The presentation provides highlights and summary of that and includes, also, a detailed budget submission that you would have received in the meeting documents, which is also accompanied by a very fulsome, detailed set of reporting tables and other documents.

On the next slide — I’ll just move along here — the agenda shows that we will begin this afternoon by providing you with a context regarding our current state, as it is important for us to help explain the rationale or the rea­son behind many of these assembly projects and priorities. We’ll also provide details of the budget assumptions and principles upon which the budget is built.

Overall, our presentation builds on an approach that we used last year and will include a review of our operating and capital components of the proposed budget submission.

The presentation will also focus separately on key in­vest­ments to move forward on three significant special projects, many of which are already deep into the planning stage, and it will also include our best estimates of the one-time investments related to the upcoming general election.

The presentation concludes with a recommendation and proposed motions for your consideration to approve or amend the budget submission and for the Speaker to formally transmit the estimates for Vote 1 to the Minister of Finance.

Throughout the presentation, of course, we welcome any questions or comments that you may have. Your input is very welcome, so please don’t hesitate to ask questions or stop us at any time.

On the next slide, this particular slide illustrates and summarizes the context that we provided to the subcommittee on finance and audit as part of their detailed review of the Vote 1 budget submission.

We continue to take a strategic approach to our planning with our actions and assumptions informed by both consideration of internal and external factors, many of which have already been brought to our subcommittees as issues, risks, topics for discussion and presentation. The three subcommittees have been very active over the course of the last year.

[1:15 p.m.]

We thank all of our subcommittee members for their input, which has helped us identify the priorities that we’re bringing forward today and for shaping the content of this submission.

Like the last two budgets we presented to LAMC, this Vote 1 budget is driven by our strategic objectives, which are summarized on the right-hand side of this slide. In the year ahead, in ’24-25, we propose to focus on 12 key init­iatives, which are articulated on the right side of the slide.

These initiatives are listed in alignment with the four higher-level objectives from our strategic plan, which are also presented on this slide. All of which position us to help better achieve our purpose, which is in the centre of this particular slide, which enables us to support a vital and accessible parliamentary institution.

The operations and key initiatives of our Vote 1 budget submission have been shaped, as I said, by a number of external and internal factors that are summarized on this slide. These factors include global changes such as inflation and supply chain challenges as well as factors that affect the composition of our Legislative Assembly and the addition of six new MLAs in the next parliament. That is the largest single increase to the size of the Legislative Assembly in almost 40 years, and it will make a significant impact on our service posture.

We’ve also shaped this budget based, as I said, on the feedback from members and also the caucus engagements. We reached out to each caucus to help inform our initial budget planning.

Organizational risks have also been reviewed carefully and holistically through the subcommittee on finance and audit as well as individually through various topics that have been brought forward to our three subcommittees. Mitigation strategies to manage these risks are incorporated into the operations and projects prioritized in our budget submission.

Lastly, through our commitment to work towards continuous improvement and delivering on results, we have been also guided by our very active internal audit program over the course of the last few years. Since 2020, we have brought to the subcommittee on finance and audit a total of nine internal audit reports, which have focused on a range of topics such as our payroll system, our ability to undertake enterprise risk management, capital planning, corporate accounting and emergency management planning.

Of the 119 findings that have documented areas of improvement for our systems and processes, we recognize there is a great deal of risk that we are managing as an institution. However, we have made very good progress to date. Over 60 findings, just over half of those findings, have now been resolved as a result of the resourcing and efforts of the past few years. Of the 59 items remaining in terms of recommendations and findings, an additional 24 are on track of resolution this year.

Investments in the budget submission in front of us this afternoon are expected to help us address an additional 26 findings as well as a number of cybersecurity considerations. These investments in our workforce, safety posture, infrastructure and systems are critically important to ensure that the Legislative Assembly is able to reliably fulfil its responsibilities and effectively plan for future operations.

At this point, I’ll invite…. It is a team presentation. I’ll now look to my colleague Suzie to provide us with an overview of the feedback that we received from caucuses during our engagement and outreach.

S. Seo (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel): We’re pleased to report that much of the analysis and planning that the administration has done to inform our budget approach is well aligned with the feedback received from members and from caucus staff.

As a key input to the development of the ’24-25 budget submission before you today, the assembly administration met with members and caucus staff to listen to the priorities and areas of focus that they wanted to see in the budget in support of their functions and operations.

Slide 4 provides a summary of that caucus engagement. Safety, security and service are our highest priorities. These, plus investments focused on enabling these prior­ities, are discussed throughout our budget presentation.

In addition to what is included on slide 4, I’d like to make particular note that the proposed budget includes means for caucus staff to access parental leave. This is included in the centralized benefits.

Additional training opportunities for staff include extending access to LinkedIn Learning to caucus staff and constituency office staff. LinkedIn Learning is a 24-seven online platform — this is not an advertisement for LinkedIn — with over 16,000 business, tech and design courses.

[1:20 p.m.]

The training opportunities also include an ongoing training catalogue that is being developed and available for members and your staff.

Among the ways the administration is supporting the prioritization of safety and security is the offering and refinement of ongoing constituency assistant safety and resiliency training from the Sergeant-at-Arms team, led by my colleague Ray Robitaille.

In support of enhancing constituency office operations, the administration is updating the member guide and improved processes for repayments through collaboration between our colleagues in the client services and financial services departments. We are also proposing to make new and continuing technology and security investments through­out the budget for constituency office fit-outs, including security, IT — specifically, audiovisual equipment, photocopiers and phones.

K. Humphrey: On the next slide, this budget is based on several key assumptions and principles, which form the building blocks of our submission. Continuing the work that has been ongoing for the past several years, we are focused on the delivery of core services and risk-informed funding requests that are aligned with critical priorities and strategic investments, as Kate mentioned earlier.

We continue to strive for fiscal prudence and accountability in our budget preparation and in our operations and are committed to looking for cost-saving opportunities and efficiencies while also investing in strategic prior­ities.

Some of these efficiencies include reductions of nearly $1 million across several areas as a result of the reduced parliamentary sitting days. Last year the administration reduced business and office expenses by 15 percent, and we have maintained this reduction in the current year while also holding overall travel flat for ’24-25.

We have based our submission on supporting the transition to the 43rd parliament following the general election in the fall. To address these additional resources required to support members through the election transition, we have committed to reallocating resources as much as possible, rather than increasing the budget request.

As we go through the presentation, we have tried to identify and isolate the one-time costs from the ongoing costs. This includes the election costs as well as several one-time key strategic initiatives. Additionally, one-time savings, such as those related to the number of parliamentary sitting days, are reflected as one-time reductions in this budget submission.

Next slide. To continue with specific assumptions within this budget, we have assumed and built the budget around the following assumptions: as noted, 56 parliamentary sitting days in the next year, which is a reduction from the current year. Inflation continues to be higher than in the past but is coming down from last year. The estimate used for wages and other policy-driven CPI increases in this budget is 3½ percent.

While construction, IT and other specific procurements continue to be challenging and price increases are often well in excess of 3½ percent in many of these areas, we have used actual contract values, where possible, for these assumptions. We have applied all of the increases in areas that are directed by policy.

As the election costs are a large factor in this budget submission, we wanted to share the base assumptions which drive many of the formulas for these proposed cost increases. These assumptions are, as Kate noted, the addition of six new members with an estimate of eight to ten net new constituency offices. This is due to the new riding boundaries, which we anticipate will create a few areas where an additional consistency office may be required by members.

Based on past history, the average turnover of MLAs after an election is approximately 35 percent. We have used this estimate in calculating our assumptions. For things like the transition allowances and the number of new leasing offices, we have assumed that all of the new consti­tuency offices will have upgraded security and technology included in this, and this is reflected particularly in the election capital section.

Now, as we get into the details of our operating budget, we wanted to highlight for the committee that this year’s Vote 1 budget submission follows the new format that was approved by the committee earlier this year. This format presents the budget in a more programmatic manner, which better reflects the activities of the assembly.

After a brief overview, the next sections of the presen­tation will go through each of these areas in a bit more detail to provide highlights of what is included in each of these sections and any significant changes from the prior years. More details are provided in the accompanying budget submission report. We have noted the special projects and election costs as separate initiatives to help clar­ify the cost drivers within the budget, but when submitted, these projects will be included within the specific areas.

[1:25 p.m.]

Slide 8 shows the overview of the consolidated operating budget for the Legislative Assembly, Vote 1. As you can see from the table on the right, the submission for the core operations of the assembly is just over $111 million. This is a 10.9 percent increase over last year.

Over and above our core operations, this year also includes additional election expenses of $13.5 million and costs for special projects estimated at $4.75 million, with the total operating budget submission coming to $129.6 million. The pie chart shows the distribution of the overall budget across all of the service lines.

I will now pass it over to my colleague Kristin Tryon to talk about the member-related sections of our operating budget.

K. Tryon: Thank you, Kathy.

Caucus operations is the first section of the budget. It is budgeted at $10.3 million. This is approximately 13 percent higher than last year and reflects the additional six new members of the assembly.

The budget is driven by the formulas outlined in the caucus policies. The submission reflects four caucuses in the upcoming year and assumes that the six new members are independent for budgeting purposes. The reason for this is that the funding model for independents is higher than for private members, which allows flexibility, depending on the actual makeup of the parties after the election.

As the caucus funding model is based on salary and benefits of a research officer — N21, step 5 — the funding increases with the collective agreement settlement within the BCGEU. As noted, the significant increase in ’24-25 reflects the part-year addition of six new members and the total overall increase in the prior year of 13.45 percent, including the six new members.

Constituency operations. This slide shows the budget required to operate constituency offices. This new category shows the members’ constituency office allowance, which has been indexed based on an estimated CPI of 3.5. Other centralized costs included in this section are constituency assistant benefits, constituency leasing costs, IT costs for each office. COs have also increased, specifically related to the election, by $6.56 million.

As noted in the assumptions, with six new members and the revised electoral boundaries…. The submission assumes an increase of eight to ten new physical locations. In addition, the tenant improvement and technology security fit-outs assume that 35 percent of the offices will be new. This section has an estimate for the new consti­tuency transition allowance of about $350,000, or a one-third turnover.

The next section is members’ compensation and allowances. The members’ remuneration section indexes members’ salaries, indemnities and benefits at 3.5 percent CPI. The compensation increase in the budget, including the six additional members, totals approximately $1.5 million.

Election-related impacts consist of $4.352 million, covering member transitional assistance at $3.9 million, the member retraining allowance at $261,000 as well as $119,000 in transition benefits. In compliance with accounting standards, the full 15-month transition allowance is budgeted in fiscal ’24-25, the year the allowance commences.

Members’ travel includes CCLA costs and member travel adjusted for 3.5 CPI. It totals $238,000, an increase over the prior year. The other costs included are stationery costs, legal costs and cell phone plan costs.

I will now pass it over to Daisy to talk about the independent respectful workplace office budget.

D. Jassar: Thank you, Kristin.

The next section of our Vote 1 budget is the respectful workplace office. As members may recall, the IRWO was created in 2020 to 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.

[1:30 p.m.]

We continue to allocate $250,000 to this office. As you can see from the chart, in fiscal ’23-24, we will use a significant portion of the $250,000, as the new service provider has contractual obligations to refresh the IRWO website and prepare educational materials such as webinars and additional training resources as well as an obligation to provide approximately 40 hours of in-person and virtual training.

Next fiscal we are anticipating that the IRWO will provide respectful workplace training as part of the new member orientation program.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): The next budget category is parliamentary operations, at an operating budget of $1.371 million. This includes interparliamentary relations, the Office of the Speaker, parliamentary committees operations and parliamentary documents.

The Office of the Speaker and parliamentary documents budgets are flat, and there are reductions in the interparliamentary relations budget due to a forecasted decrease in travel by members to undertake those activities. There’s also a decrease in parliamentary committees operations, as we anticipate that there will be less committee activity next fiscal year in anticipation of the general election.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I’ll pick it up from there.

Slide 14 focuses on the Legislative Assembly administration. This budget category is made up of a number of subcategories with respect to our organization: client and support services, information services, parliamentary support services, precinct services, security and sessional services. All these areas combined make up just over 40 percent of the overall Vote 1 Legislative Assembly budget.

As noted in the sections above, with respect to members, one-time, election-related costs are broken out and reflect about 5 percent of the Legislative Assembly administration total, while the special projects this year represent approximately 9 percent. Other areas of the administration are fairly evenly distributed, representing between 15 and 19 percent of the total.

As noted earlier, our budget assumptions included a reduction in parliamentary sitting days. This reduced number of parliamentary sitting days provided us with an opportunity to demonstrate a level of responsiveness. As many of the staff who support parliamentary activities have specialized skills, we look forward to redeploying staff to the election readiness teams wherever feasible. This reallocation, I believe, is a prudent use of staff talent, supports the retention of these skilled sessional positions and will also help to support election transition activities.

As we entered the third year of our strategic plan, the assembly investments aim to continue our progress to over­come the historic underinvestment that has resulted in technical, building infrastructure, systems and process debts within our organization. Our investments in up­grad­ing systems and technology have begun to mitigate the risks of system failure and security breaches.

Through building capacity and project management with our planning teams, we have begun to be able to address some significant project work still required to ensure continuity of business operations and to move towards the protection and restoration of the historic buildings on the precinct.

Over the past number of years, as I mentioned, various internal audits and other external reviews have identified gaps in governance and process oversight. In this budget submission, resource allocations help us focus by adding extra capacity to develop processes and structures to mitigate those risks. Overall, our core operations of the Legislative Assembly administration are proposed to increase by $4.1 million, or 9.9 percent.

The one-time costs related to the election and special initiatives add $7 million to next year’s assembly budget submission, bringing the overall submission for the assembly administration up by $11 million to a total of $53.4 million for next year.

K. Humphrey: Slide 15 shows the service line in which amortization and other centralized expenditures land. For ’24-25, there is a $2.9 million increase in amortization, which reflects the catch-up of underfunding of amortization that we have in the current year, as well as the anticipation of new projects completed next year.

It’s expected that amortization will continue to increase over the next few years as the Legislative Assembly invests in its assets — technology, building and other assets — and the costs are amortized over the estimated life of these assets.

Offsetting the amortization expense within the general centralized accounting is a discounting factor that accounts for delays that we may experience in achieving our intended outcomes. These may come in the way of recruitment lag, staff turnover, project delays and supply chain challenges. We have kept this discount factor at $2 million, which is the same as the prior year.

[1:35 p.m.]

I will now pass the presentation over to my colleague Jesse to talk about the first of our special projects.

J. Szczepanowski: Thanks, Kathy.

The Legislative Assembly is working on a number of one-time special projects that are aligned to our strategic plan. These include continuing work on the Armouries building redevelopment project, the proposed modular precinct child care centre and the enterprise resource planning software project.

The first major project recommended for continuation is the preparation of a detailed business case for the Armouries building redevelopment project. The business case will explore redevelopment opportunities for the Armouries building, which is located on the southwest corner of the legislative precinct behind the main Parliament Buildings.

The Armouries building, built in 1894, is at the end of its useful life and requires major renovations or redevelopment. This project supports the long-term infrastructure renewal work that is required in the legislative precinct to invest in modern, secure and sustainable infrastructure. The redevelopment of the Armouries building will provide much-needed infrastructure to ensure the business continuity of the Legislative Assembly operations during the planned repair and renovations of the main Parliament Buildings.

The budget submission for 2024-25 is seeking funding to proceed with phase 2 of the Armouries redevelopment project, which includes the preparation of a comprehensive business case and options analysis for redevelopment or repair of the Armouries building. This business case will include detailed financial modelling of all options.

The next major special project is to continue work on the final concept plan for the proposed modular child care centre on the legislative precinct. The proposed centre will accommodate 37 child care spaces and serve as a medium-term option on the precinct, with the goal to integrate child care into the proposed redeveloped Armouries building as a permanent solution.

The work on the proposed child care project continues to progress well. We’re in the final stages of selecting a not-for-profit child care operator to run the proposed centre. Once the operating agreement is finalized with the lead proponent, we will work with the architect, the operator and the project team to finalize the building design and submit a grant application to the ChildCareBC new spaces fund to cover the capital costs of this new building.

Upon approval of the grant application, we will return to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee to seek effective project approval to proceed with the construction phase of the project. Once approved, the construction phase is expected to take approximately ten to 12 months to complete, and we will be working with all stakeholders across the Legislative Assembly to establish an opening date for the centre.

I will note that most of the capital and operating costs for this project will be recovered through the ChildCareBC new spaces fund. The operational impacts of running the proposed facility will not be realized till fiscal year 2025-26.

I’d like to turn the presentation over to my colleague Daisy Jassar to speak about the enterprise resource planning project.

D. Jassar: Thank you, Jesse.

The enterprise resource planning project addresses risks associated with our current patchwork of manual systems, internally developed custom systems and an antiquated ERP system to perform core financial management, payroll and human resource functions.

The risks associated with the current environment have been articulated in subcommittee updates and through enterprise risk management annual reports. The risk that outdated information systems fail was rated as high in both the 2022-23 and the 2023-24 reports with risk events, such as the failure to pay members and staff, identified as possible outcomes should the risk materialize. The implementation of a modern ERP system has been identified as a key treatment strategy to mitigate this risk.

The business challenges related to inadequate systems and tools in the ERP space have also been documented in internal audits conducted by MNP and in our external audits from OAG presented to SFA. The following outstanding risks are related to legacy systems; potential system failures; reduced vendor support; lack of trusted, accurate data; and lack of executive reporting.

The 2022 payroll system review made 13 recommendations, with seven outstanding findings anticipated to be addressed by an ERP implementation. The 2023 corporate accounting review made 12 recommendations, with seven outstanding findings to be addressed by an ERP implementation. The 2021 human resource process review made seven recommendations, with as many as five of the findings addressed through enhanced ERP functionality, and the 2023 financial statement audit from the Auditor General’s only management letter finding would have been addressed through an ERP.

[1:40 p.m.]

In addition to the risk mitigation and the audit findings, an ERP is expected to bring several efficiencies to the organization. The elimination of manual processes and streamlining will result in time savings for clients using the system and staff administering processes managed through the system. Automation of tasks and processes can enable staff to focus on more strategic and value-added tasks, enable faster decision-making and reduce the likelihood of data errors.

The budget request for this project is $4 million. There is no additional ask for FTEs for this project, but we will need to create temporary assignments to provide backfill for staff participating in this project.

The planned scope for the ’24-25 activities includes completing the procurement and contract negotiations to select an ERP product and system integrator vendor; establishing the initial implementation scope, the schedule and the duration; establishing governance processes for oversight and decision-making during and after implementation; backfilling key subject-matter experts with temporary staff, enabling required participation and involvement in key project activities; implementing ERP modules as prioritized in the project schedule; business readiness activities, including organizational change management, end-user testing and training, plan development, all aimed at improving the implementation process.

I’m handing it back to Artour for election readiness.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): I’d like to provide members with an overview of the just over $13½ million included in the budget submission for election-related costs. These are largely one-time costs that have been isolated into this budget line so that members understand what it includes.

There are a number of constituency office–related costs. These include tenant improvement costs, the constituency allowance increase, the constituency assistant transition assistance, the constituency office start-up allowance increase, the furniture allowance increase. We do anti­cipate that there will be incremental lease costs, and we’ve budgeted this at just over $6½ million.

There’s another $4.6 million for the MLA transition assistance, the MLA retraining allowance and also the benefits calculation on the transition assistance. There’s an additional $1.5 million for program administration. This includes all on-boarding and off-boarding activities for members and their staff; the orientation programming; funding for accessibility and security reviews at constituency offices; updating publications within the Legislative Assembly, particularly public-facing publications, given the increase of members that is anticipated; facilities management–related costs; and also a modest contingency amount.

Then there are also additional IT costs related to the transition and space modernization costs that are just over $1 million, for a total of $13.558 million.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): This next slide provides an overview of the consolidated operating budget submission for the year ahead, incorporating all of the budget subcategories, which we have just addressed in more detail.

As noted by my colleagues, our focus for the budget submission is very much oriented towards addressing key areas of strategic investment to ensure that the needs of members and the institution are met in the year ahead and to help us also address and mitigate risks that have been identified and tracked and also noted within the external reviews and audits that have been undertaken.

The investments, of course, also orientate us to respond to the planning and transition and growth of our organization that will result as a consequence of the upcoming provincial general election.

The table on the right-hand side of this screen consolidates all of those operating investments and some reductions with respect to parliamentary operations.

It might be a good opportunity to pause and to see if there are any questions or lines of discussion that we can open up at this point before we proceed with the capital portion of the budget presentation.

T. Stone: I have a question, but I just want to make sure that I’m understanding some of these numbers correctly. The 10.9 percent variance on the core operating budget is inclusive of the costs associated with — I mean, there’s a whole bunch of stuff that’s driving this — the six additional MLAs for a partial part of the fiscal year. The costs that that represents would be the salaries of those MLAs, the costs of their constituency offices and constituency staff, etc.

[1:45 p.m.]

That’s what’s baked into the core operating budget, whereas the election-related line item…. These represent one-time costs that are associated with the retiring MLAs or MLAs who aren’t re-elected — their transition assistance, and those kinds of things — and also with new MLAs that are elected and the costs of ramping them up. Correct?

I just think that from a public perspective, these are big numbers. When you look at a 10.9 percent increase in the core budget and then these one-time costs, these are some pretty big numbers, but they’re predominantly driven by an increase in the size of the Legislature, an additional six MLAs — which, obviously, LAMC wasn’t responsible for. We have to respond to the fact that that’s a reality, right?

My question would be…. I don’t know, Kathy, if you can answer this. If there hadn’t been an increase in the size of the Legislature — there’d still be an election happening, but we weren’t adding six more MLAs — what would that do to the budget here? With the 10.9 percent increase in the core operating budget, what would that likely look like if you weren’t adding six more MLAs to the mix? It would be less.

K. Humphrey: It would be less, yes.

T. Stone: I’m just trying to understand the order of magnitude. Would we be looking at a 6.9 percent increase in the core operating budget, or 7.9?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): If I might, I’d welcome Kathy also offering her perspective on what is driving the change to our core operating budget. The growth of six new members represents approximately a 7 percent increase in the overall size of the members, who are, of course, at the heart of this institution. We also know, through the caucus funding formulas, that there are corresponding increases to the number of staff that would also be assigned to support members in their caucus responsibilities.

Yes, the election-related costs are intended to be all of those start-up costs that are required to both transition through the departing members of the current parliament and to set up for success all 93 members that come through an election period, with any one-time-funding costs that are required to operationalize new constituency offices, as well as technology — that is my understanding — and security costs, of course. The constituency offices need to meet the standards that have been identified for operations in a safe environment.

I certainly welcome Kathy.

A. Olsen: I’m just wondering if, to the point that Todd just made, the six new members and also the transition of 35 percent of the members — that also has to take in a large percentage of that. We expect there to be some transition, in and out of this place, of new members as well.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Yes, that’s quite correct. The 35 percent turnover that we have used is an assumption, for budget planning. That would fall into that election-related category. You’re quite correct in what we’re anticipating to be overturn of members not seeking re-election or perhaps a turnover in the representation in various areas which aligns historically with trends that we have documented.

J. Sims: I’m not saying that we need to have it now. It would be good to have a dollar amount that is associated with the six new members in total, including the constituency office, the remuneration, all of those things. I think it’s a useful piece of information to have in our hands, for some weird reason.

T. Stone: Yeah, it there were a ballpark idea now, that would be great. I’m fine with that information coming, but I do think it would be useful to have.

K. Humphrey: Yeah, my apologies in that I don’t have that number at hand.

It primarily sits within caucus support, constituency operations and members remuneration directly, as well as within the Legislative Assembly administration. We’ve budgeted for security increases, additional offices and that sort of thing, knowing that we have more members, replac­ing technology and that sort of stuff. So the direct six times or eight to ten offices times are in the first three cate­gories, with a little bit being in administration.

We can definitely calculate a number for you and get back to you. My apologies for not having it today.

Mr. Speaker: Anyone else?

[1:50 p.m.]

L. Doerkson: I presume that we can jump around a little bit. If that is the case, I wanted to get a better understanding of the business case for the Armouries building. I think we’ve got, in the budget submission, $650,000. I wondered if I could get a bit of a better understanding of what that will buy us.

J. Szczepanowski: You bet. Thank you for the question.

The Armouries business case. The next phase will be doing a detailed design of the new proposed building as well as doing an options analysis of redeveloping the current building. It is largely consulted work. We do have a current architect contract. Part of the scope of their orig­inal contract is phase 2 of this project.

That number was put together with an estimate from that architect as well as knowing…. We will need some outside consulting help for that project as we go through the business case process.

Mr. Speaker: Anyone else?

L. Doerkson: Also, further to another section, the independent respectful workplace office…. How many people are working in there? I think we’ve got a budget submission for $250,000. I’m just wondering if there’s a bit more of a breakdown.

D. Jassar: We don’t have insight into exactly how many people are working in there. The provider is a law firm, Southern Butler Price. It is, basically, as needed. People are brought in. On an ongoing basis, there is basically someone administering the email intake.

There are no staff per se working in the independent respectful workplace office. It is a service provider to us.

L. Doerkson: I must have missed it. How much did we spend last year, then?

D. Jassar: We spent very little last year. We’d have to go look at the slide there.

L. Doerkson: This is, basically, a legal opinion, then, Mr. Speaker. Is that…?

Mr. Speaker: I think it’s a legal opinion and consultation.

L. Doerkson: Thank you.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): If I might as well, the independent respectful workplace office is also responsible for training materials and will be providing and developing new on-boarding materials for members in the new parliament as well as all staff and employees who are covered by the services they provide.

In addition to ensuring they are there as a resource for any policy participant who has a question or a concern with respect to the scope of the policy and resolution avenues under it, they are a source of advice and guidance to both members and staff as well as responsible for the overall training and information programs.

Members will have received, I believe, in the last few weeks, an update from the office. It included a fall newsletter and an overview of the training materials that they have prepared and have available for use at any time.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): If I may just add. Their primary responsibility, as Kate mentioned, is to administer the respectful workplace policy.

To your question on how much was utilized last year, the actual in fiscal ’21-22 was $88,024.

The current year is the first full year where we have a service provider in place for the duration of the fiscal year. They are rolling out the training resources and other deliverables that they have under the contract. That’s why Daisy mentioned earlier…. We anticipate that the budget will be fully spent.

T. Stone: I just wanted to ask about the enterprise resource planning project.

We have, under special projects, a $4.75 million request. I get that $650,000 of that is to develop a comprehensive business case and a detailed design for the Armouries project. I think $100,000 was in operating as part of the request for the ongoing work with respect to the modular child care facility. The $4 million is for the enterprise resource planning implementation.

[1:55 p.m.]

I totally understand the reality that exists right now with the disparate payroll, HR, financial management systems and the need for modernizing all of that. The appropriate way to do it is exactly, I think, at a high level, what’s being proposed here insofar as looking at an enterprise type of system that brings these functions into one place. It will certainly address those audit risk findings and the challenges that we know exist.

At the highest level, where I have heartburn about this is that $650,000 for a comprehensive business case for the Armouries project is a stark contrast to a $4 million esti­mate request for an ERP system.

I guess I’m wondering if we could get some further explanation as to why the $4 million number. It just seems like we’re….

There has been a lot of process wrapped around the Armouries project and, certainly, a lot around the child care facility, in terms of incremental requests that fund the next step in the evaluation process of these projects. This one seems like a huge swing for the fences, $4 million without…. I mean, we really haven’t, at least not that I’m aware of, been provided with much more detail than what we’ve seen in the package here, which is that there’s a need. There are some audit findings, and there has been a little bit of language wrapped around that.

I’m wondering why the $4 million request, all at once, when this seems to be in the very, very early stages of discussion.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I can begin. I certainly invite Daisy, as our project lead, to help set a bit more context as to the approach.

I know that the ERP project has been an ongoing effort to identify what the needs are for the organization. The estimate of the costs for implementation, which has been provided within the budget, has been consistent with other ERP costs that were identified in comparable organizations for the level and tier of product that we would likely be concluding is the best fit for our organization.

I understand some estimates were available and presented to the subcommittee in October of 2022, so it has been some time since we’ve brought that to the committee.

Those costs included licensing and vendor implementation costs. Staff augmentation is also a significant portion of the budget ask for next year, as Daisy mentioned, in ensuring that we are successful with this implementation, which is a very significant undertaking. We want to ensure that we can maintain operational consistency for these critical areas within the organization but also ensure that we have the right people at the table. Staff backfilling is also a significant portion of that request.

I’d invite Daisy or Andrew to let us know if there is another milestone that we anticipate where we can provide perhaps a more fulsome update to the subcommittee with respect to the results of the NRFP process currently underway.

A. Spence: I’m happy to start answering that question.

As Kate alluded to, back in 2022, we completed a business case process where we looked at and evaluated a number of different approaches to bringing forward an ERP. Also at that point, we went and performed a number of due diligence steps in terms of assessing our internal capabilities but also looked at other providers in the area that we could potentially partner with or to see what their current situations are so that we could really get a better understanding of cost.

At this point in time, we’ve gone out and started the procurement process just so that we can actually bring forward what the actual cost could be for the solution that we require here for the organization. At that point, we would bring back more of the, similar to what Jesse is providing with the business case or the decision point for the decision to proceed….

Really, that is our next step so we can understand what the actual costs are. At this point, we’re just providing our best estimate and then look at bringing forward more of a decision for LAMC on the next step on proceeding.

Mr. Speaker: Did anyone else want to add something? No.

Daisy? No.

Adam, you have a question?

[2:00 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Yeah. Just from the responses here, is this a case of requesting access to the funds before we have that business case put forward? It seems, from the response, that we’re securing the $4 million now.

Maybe you can provide some clarity on this, Andrew.

It may or may not be enough. That’s the sense that I have.

Is this the reality in which the assembly would like to have access to the resources to be able to move ahead with the project in this fiscal year? If that’s the case, great. You know, we might have a line item next year to make up for a gap or whatever. Provide as much….

A. Spence: I’m happy to answer. It was our best estimate at cost for right now, and our plan is to bring back the full costs but have that placeholder in the budget so that we can start when that decision is made — that we wouldn’t need to come back for a subsequent budget request for that at that point in time.

T. Stone: With all due respect, I don’t actually think that’s the best way to do this.

I think that if there’s a detailed business case that’s been done, and if that was a year ago, as we’ve seen with cost escalation on all kinds of things…. I totally get that it’s a best estimate, and that’s probably an understatement.

I think it’s asking a bit too much of this committee to essentially sign off on a $4 million line item in a budget without actually having a business case in front of us that’s central to the actual request that’s being made today, not from a year ago but that’s based on the most current numbers from today.

I’m not opposed at all to the project. I’m not…. To be clear, I totally support modernizing this place, and I totally get what this is intended to do. I just think it’s putting the cart before the horse, where we’re sitting here a year after business case work was done. Those current detailed numbers aren’t in front of us as we’re being asked to sign off on a $4 million placeholder, essentially, in the budget.

I would be much more comfortable scaling back the…. If there’s remaining work to do to refine a number, then let’s fund that so that we can then make a decision on what the actual expected cost of the project is going to be, or just not sign off on funding at the moment until we have the actual details in front of us. One or the other would seem to be acceptable to me.

I’m not sure I can support a $4 million ask that’s a best estimate that’s based on, it sounds like, business planning work that was done a year ago. I say that again, with all due respect.

Mr. Speaker: Well said.

Ravi.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, Chair.

My understanding from what I have heard, and maybe folks can clarify, is that this is a…. Notionally, we’ve put this number in, but before any dollars get spent, folks will come back to the committee with an updated plan, costing, and then we can proceed.

Is that the case? Because if that’s the case, then we have no issues with it. I just want to confirm that piece.

Mr. Speaker: Anyone want to comment on that? We have Lorne, and Adam after. But would anybody like to answer his question?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): In essence….

We’re just conferring, Minister, with colleagues at the table, but the investment is intended to be scalable. I think once we have the clarity from the NRFP process, we will have further information that we’ll be able to bring forward in more detail.

It was intended to enable us to begin the project work, but we do have some levers, I think, in terms of the timing of this project, in terms of when we would fully start. We will likely have much more information with respect to the particular ERP solution that is identified as a part of that process and the timelines and the associated assumptions have been tested further.

I will confer with other colleagues while the conversation continues.

L. Doerkson: I wanted to note some concern as well.

I’m not opposed either to, obviously, updating systems. We’ve seen this in other offices throughout our province, of course.

[2:05 p.m.]

The concern I have is really to Adam’s earlier point, which was that we don’t even know if this is enough. I think that the notion that we anticipate $4 million…. Well, that takes my breath away. I just worry that the number could be wrong for many reasons.

Then my question would be…. A business case, of course, would demonstrate, you know, exactly where our weaknesses are, and I can appreciate that there are some findings here. But how bad is the system? I mean, how old is the technology, and is this the time for this?

Those are all questions that, I guess, would be cleared up in a business case. I’d be happy to hear some answers to that now, but it just seems to me that it’s a bit of a mystery whether or not this number is actually right.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): What we can advise the committee is that this is a significant new investment for the Legislative Assembly. We don’t have an integrated solution of this kind. We’ve never organizationally invested in a system of this kind, so it is a new undertaking.

Our assessment of the market and solutions that are likely to be available to us indicate that the $4 million is not the total project cost. What this is, is it’s intended to be a placeholder to enable us to undertake this work, but it’s likely to continue into the next fiscal year. The best information that we have will indicate that it will be more than that cost that is proposed for consideration for next year’s budget.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important that we don’t notionally approve a budget. We approve the budget, or we don’t approve the budget. I think it’s important for us to be comfortable with the numbers that we are approving here today and that we are informed in that decision-making process in it.

Where I’m getting hung up on this, and I think I’ll be the third member to say this now…. I don’t think we need to maintain the system we have. I think we need a new system. My constituency office has and we have, to a certain extent, navigated that system and have determined that a new enterprise resource planning product is impor­tant.

However, I think I just need to highlight a considerably different process for this particular line item and the other line items that have spending. We have done the planning processes, and we are being asked to approve budgets that are in relation to the process. Here, we’re being asked to do a different process, which is, for whatever reason, to approve a number, and then we will plan to that number.

I guess what’s hanging me up on this is that all the way through this, we have a very deliberate and intentional process, which has been…. For the Armouries building, for an example, we are staging this, and we will be asked for the budget when we need it.

I guess what’s unclear to me is whether or not for this particular project we’re getting hung up in an election year where, at some point, a LAMC committee is going to stop working and stop being available to the Legislative Assembly. If that’s the case, this starts to provide a little bit more clarity for me, because this might be a situation where we want to be working to solve this problem while an election is underway and while all that is going on.

I’m noting the considerably different processes that are being used on these separate line items. We have a modular child care centre that has progressed. Each time that we’ve needed to approve a budget, we’ve approved the budget, and it has moved to the next stage of it. Same thing with the Armouries development. We’re in a very meticulous kind of staged process. Then when we get to the enterprise resource, we have a number, and now we’re working towards that number.

I think that’s where I’m getting hung up in this particular line item — not the line item in general, but the approach that’s been taken is inconsistent with the other approaches that we’ve undertaken.

M. Babchuk: It’s my understanding, if I recall correctly, that staff is just doing what the committee asked them to do. There was immediacy around this with new MLAs coming to the table, and we are all very familiar with some of the issues that happened right after the last election.

[2:10 p.m.]

I actually give a lot of kudos to staff for coming up with a way to actually put it into the budget, with the idea that we are going to be getting regular updates, going forward, so that as these business cases flush out, we are able to start implementing some of these systems.

I understand what the members opposite are talking about, and I do understand that it is a bit of a different process, but like I said, I do believe that it was these committees that actually asked staff to come up with a way to do this in a comprehensive and very immediate way.

There’s also a very large operational piece that’s happening with this that is different than a full capital build, like we’re talking about with the child care centre or the Armouries building. So although I understand the comparisons, I think that we need to take a look that, operationally, this is going to unfold a lot differently than those big builds.

J. Sims: I agree, because this is operational. We’re here in a very antiquated system that is kind of working in silos right now and a lot of it managed manually. I don’t think, when we have an enterprise like this, that we can let a whole year go by without starting some of this critical work.

The way I saw this was we know this is the beginning, and we will start working on this, and then bring us a more fine-tuned proposal later. Whereas if we don’t have it in the budget now, then you’re basically going for another whole year without starting work on modernizing operations, which I think almost every one of us would agree is in dire need.

N. Simons: Yeah, just to Lorne’s point, I think that there is considerable evidence supporting the need to do this. Recognizing what Michele just said about the urgency and the need to get this going, I think that the case is made. I don’t think we should…. The oversight for the expenditure of this funding is going to be obviously robust. I understand the justification or the rationalization for doing it this way. It may not be the most common way of doing things.

I think the reports that suggest the potential weakness of the systems that we have…. I’d say we should just move on with it.

L. Doerkson: I don’t know what the dire need is. That hasn’t been explained, and that’s, I guess, my question.

I see that there are concerns here, Nick, and I can appreciate what you’re saying. But we have a number before us that we’re going to vote on, for $4 million, and I would like clarity as to where that number came from. I mean, if there were conversations a year ago, then how right is this number?

What we’ve seen with costs in just about every category in our province is that maybe this number is $1 million wrong, low. I’m not speaking against it at all. I’m trying to understand better where we arrived at this and just how dire this is.

I can appreciate the challenges that we saw.

Trust me, Nick; I saw them in my own office.

I’ve conveyed that to Kate and others with respect to the technology upgrades that we had, which, by the way, just finished last summer. I am well aware of the challenges, but I’m just not aware of where that $4 million comes from. And I’m not clear, with all due respect, as to the dire need.

I can appreciate that there are seven findings here, and I’m not arguing that. I’m just trying to get clarity around just how dire this is.

A. Olsen: A question that I had, a remnant on the modular child care, just to shift gears slightly….

The last bullet here is around the ChildCareBC new spaces fund grant application for capital funding. I believe, in the framing from staff, that this capital project will be funded by ChildCareBC. Have we applied and been approved to do it, or is it our intention to apply and get approval? Have they said that we’ve been approved for this?

I’m wondering. I just want clarity on whether or not we have the capital approval or whether or not we’re going to go to it.

Mr. Speaker: Kate, maybe you can answer some of those questions.

Then we will go to Nick.

[2:15 p.m.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Sure. Shall I go to child care and then return to the ERP? Does that work for members? I sense that is a continuing topic of conversation.

To your particular question, Adam, with respect to the modular child care, we have issued an NRFP and have been successful and are currently in negotiations with a very experienced child care operator. Based on our collaboration with that operator, once we have successfully confirmed that they would be able to take on that role, it is that operator who will then apply for the new spaces funding.

We’re in the midst of that process now, and we haven’t yet initiated that application, but we’ve been working closely with the administrators of the new spaces fund. It’s our understanding that the scope of this project aligns very much with the types of investments that would likely be successful as a result of the application.

The ongoing operations of that facility will also be something that we bring back to the committee for full consideration. That also includes security considerations for that new facility.

Interjections.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): A joint submission. My apologies.

Thank you for that, Jesse.

Then I welcome Lorne’s questions as well. In November, with respect to the subcommittee on finance and audit, we did bring forward a fairly detailed decision note with respect to this significant funding request.

We very much appreciate the importance of this conversation to the budget process. The risks associated with the current setup, as Lorne mentioned, have been flagged in a number of reports, including the enterprise risk management annual report and the internal audits. The risk that the outdated information systems fail was rated as high in both the ’22-23 and the ’23-24 enterprise risk management reports, with risk events such as the failure to pay members and staff as some of the identified potential outcomes, should the risk materialize.

The implementation of a modern ERP system had been identified consistently as the key treatment strategy to miti­gate against that risk. So the ERP system gaps contribute, as well, to a medium risk rating on the challenges of attracting and retaining skilled employees to work with incomplete workforce data. It also affects the quality of reporting that we can bring forward to governance.

That decision note, as well, from November 21 — I apologize. It’s not before the committee in its entirety, but it did lay out some of the pros and cons of the consideration of this budget request today. By bringing forward the request, we were hoping to enable the project to commence and position us to be in an early position to address the risks that have been identified to date and to begin to close some of those audit findings.

We also recognize that the decision had a degree of uncertainty within it, and we might require additional budget adjustments on a go-forward basis once we better understood what products would emerge through that RFP process.

The alternative would be, of course, to return to the subcommittee and then to this committee following the conclusion of the RFP process, once we better understood the known costs in terms of the timing and the duration of the project, to help you make a more informed decision on this significant investment.

That would require, of course, an additional budget approval process and extended timelines. Because of the nature of these risks, we’ve been trying to act with some expediency to bring it forward. But I certainly want members to feel that they are equipped with the right decision with respect to this part of our submission.

N. Simons: I was just going to assure Lorne, but not only Lorne, that there are a number of studies that had all concluded the high risk associated with not doing anything, just to alleviate any concerns about that. There was the 2022 payroll systems review, the corporate accounting review in 2023 — I just see this in my notes — and the 2021 human resources processes review.

I’m presuming the subcommittee on finance and audit has looked at those and has heard the rationale. I’m glad that they did that for us.

M. Babchuk: Further on that….

Thank you for bringing us back to that decision note, Kate. I was trying to go through all of my stuff here.

[2:20 p.m.]

To Lorne’s question about where did the number come from; did they pluck it out of the sky…. In that decision note, there was a recommendation that was passed through the subcommittee that actually states that option 1 is the recommendation that the 2024-25 Vote 1 budget include $4 million for the ERP project. That is why it is represented in that budget at that. It came out of the subcommittee after the discussion that happened there.

T. Stone: I appreciate all of the submissions that have been made, particularly from the government members, but I will take us back to what I also appreciate the Clerk, Kate, saying a moment ago that the appropriate way to do this, the best way to do this, especially when you’re talking about this kind of a dollar amount, is to do the RFP process and get the tight numbers and bring that forward for approval.

We can’t do anything about the fact that we are where we are today with an election on the horizon. I don’t think that throwing a $4 million line item in the budget and saying: “Okay, well, at least staff can just work away while we’re in an election mode and the elected officials aren’t here.” It’s exactly why we are here, to provide oversight and accountability on the expenditures of this place.

As someone who has a lot of background on the tax base, ERP system implementations are hugely expensive. They are never on budget, not just saying in the Legislative Assembly here. I appreciate the disclaimer up front that this is an estimate and that it’s likely to cost more, because it will cost more. It’ll cost a heck of a lot more than $4 million, and it’ll probably be spread out not over one year but probably two or three years — the level of complexity that’s often associated with these kinds of systems.

I just think it’s unfathomable for us to, based on a series of reviews that have shown that there are risks…. I totally get that. I don’t think there’s any dispute whatsoever amongst any of us that there are risks in not improving how these functions are managed, and the way to do that is through an ERP system.

The findings from each of these reviews — which yes, were summarized in the briefing note, the decision note — reflect the need to do something. It doesn’t reflect the options of what that doing something looks like.

That’s the whole point of what I think this, whether it’s at the committee level or here…. I just can’t believe that we would sign off on a $4 million placeholder, hanging our hat entirely on the fact that there’s need but doing it at a time where there won’t necessarily be the accountability of this committee that, as elected officials, we are here to actually provide.

I think we should do what the Clerk said earlier as an alternative approach to this — empower the staff to actually go and do the RFP and engage that, get that process rolling and bring detailed costs back to us so that we can approve actual numbers that are real in terms of what the deliverables are, not just based on a notion, I think we all agree with, that there is a tremendous amount of need.

There are risks with not doing anything. I don’t think anyone here is saying we don’t want to do anything. But the timing of an election — there are just things that are outside of everyone’s control. I don’t think when you throw an election into the mix and the fact that we’ll have a turnover of this committee and will have a turnover of elected officials and whatnot is the time to be throwing a $4 million placeholder into the budget on a project that will have tremendous risk wrapped around it, based on just how ERP implementations go.

These kinds of enterprise system implementations are very complicated, and they never are on budget or on time. It’s exactly the time when elected officials, on behalf of the taxpayers of this province, need to be engaged and on top of it and paying close attention and asking the tough questions and being asked to make decisions on numbers that actually correlate to specific deliverables and specific work.

I can’t support this as it’s currently going forward. I don’t know if that can be reflected separately, or if I have to vote against the overall Vote 1. But I’m not going to sign off personally on a $4 million placeholder in the budget for this system but rather would suggest we empower the staff to do the RFP, get the RFP going and bring real numbers with real deliverables back to us that we can then discuss and decide as a committee if we will support at that point.

[2:25 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: All of those comments and concerns raised by members — I think they’re valid. It’s really good that we are able to go through them.

There are a couple of options. One is that we totally remove this line item from the submission and then pass the rest of it or just table that portion and seek more clarification and bring it back. We can do it that way. But before we continue with that….

A. Olsen: I was just going to ask what the options were. You got there, and I would even suggest that if members are not prepared to move it, then perhaps moving a motion to remove it or something that can get us to a deci­sion to vote on.

T. Stone: I’d be happy to move that, unless you were going to.

A. Olsen: No, I’m not going to.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Todd, do you want to move it?

T. Stone: Sure. I move a motion that this $4 million ERP planning implementation budget request be removed from the Vote 1.

I don’t know if that’s enough of….

Mr. Speaker: You heard the question. All those…. Any debate on that?

N. Simons: Can I just ask one question?

Mr. Speaker: Yeah, sure.

N. Simons: Does the mover have any suggestion as to how to ensure that the project can start with his proposed motion on the table? The statement that it’s likely going to be more than $4 million…. We have robust oversight of expenditures that are made from anywhere in this Legislative Assembly. The subcommittee had extensive discussions on it.

I don’t know. I think you’re both on the subcommittee.

I think the members are both on the subcommittee. This came out of that. There’s an urgency. On the one hand, there’s a suggestion that it’s going to be…. We don’t know how much it’s going to be, but it’s going to be more than $4 million. It says right in here that it’s a multi-year project.

I don’t know. I’m just suggesting that we have a way of ensuring accountability for the expenditures on a project that we know is essential and urgent.

A. Olsen: I’m just going to suggest that the scrutiny that this line item has received in this and in the subcommittee is part of that accountability and transparency mechanism — the fact that we can ask these questions, that we have these questions and the concerns on the record and the responses from our colleagues.

I unfortunately was not able to be in that subcommittee meeting. I recognize that the process continues and respect the members that were at that, that brought the recommendation for us to see here today.

I’m satisfied with the responses as to why the different process. I’m confident in the fact that we’ve been having, as long as I’ve been a House Leader, conversations about the ERP and the fact that this project needs to move forward.

I just want to note that this is part of that scrutiny and oversight, and the robustness in asking those questions is part of what our job is here. I appreciate that if members are uncomfortable with supporting this number, they have that as well, and that’s the debate that we’re having right now.

I’m thankful that the staff has answered the questions and that we’re here.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I, too, want to echo Adam’s comments. I think it’s great to have a discussion, and of course I appreciate Kate’s response as well and that this conversation happened at the subcommittee.

I guess my question is…. I’m not going to vote in favour of the motion moved forward by my friend across the way, but just a technical question. Would you like to have…? Is it easier to have this item separate for a separate vote so that members can have a say, or is it all or nothing? Just for my colleagues, if they want to be against this and support the rest of the Vote 1.

[2:30 p.m.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I want to just mention, if I might, that we very much welcome the oversight role that is played by this committee and that the questions and the discussion here today are very valuable to us, so I don’t want there to be any question in anyone’s mind.

Our intention here is to bring forward this important investment. It was isolated for this exact reason — that we felt that it was a significant resourcing request and that it did deserve this kind of engagement. So we’re very grateful for that.

Members should be aware that the NRFP process is a negotiated RFP process. It began in October of 2023, with a deadline for bids in early December. Because of that timing, there are still unknowns, of course, in terms of what that process will result in. We hope to select a successful proponent by the end of this fiscal year. However, negotiations and the contract won’t be fully known to us until Q1 of next year.

I wanted to share with members that there has been a great deal of work done with respect to planning to date. I should also mention — I was remiss in doing so, but it may ring a bell — that we also explored the potential of on-boarding to the provincial government’s PeopleSoft ERP solution.

An assessment of that solution identified that only some of the needs of the organization would be met and that the amount of investment was going to be again a very significant, multi-million-dollar investment for the organization without fully realizing the needs.

As a result of that exercise, which took place in the spring of 2023, we’ve then done our due diligence with respect to this other process which is underway.

T. Stone: With that information, and I appreciate that a lot, Kate, similar to what we did last year, we actually had a couple of items that….

You know, we had this last meeting of the year, in December last year, and then there were, if I remember correctly, a couple of items that carried over into January because there was additional information pulled together, and so forth. It was done in a timely fashion in the sense that it was done so that we could bring it back to this committee and make a final decision and that we didn’t miss any of the timelines associated with the submission going into Ministry of Finance.

In fact, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we submitted everything we could to the Ministry of Finance except for a couple of outstanding pieces, which we got. We waited for more information, we were provided that information, and then we were able to make an informed decision.

If it requires a motion, perhaps my motion would be to just defer this piece until that RFP is concluded and we know what the actual numbers are. It was news to me that we’re that deep into the actual RFP process and that you’re weeks away from actually, potentially, having the much tighter numbers.

I would be much more comfortable making a decision — again, I’ve said it a few times — on real numbers that have come out of an RFP process. If we’re within two to four weeks of that happening, I think it would be a reasonable approach for this committee to just defer on making the decision on this today and get that additional information coming out of the RFP process and call us back together in January. I’ll make myself available at any point.

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

I’ll just clarify that although we hope to select a vendor by the end of this fiscal year…. It’s not the end of the calendar year; it was at the end of the fiscal year that we hoped to select a vendor. But we won’t have the certainty of the results of the negotiation completed at that point in time, so the actual costs that are anticipated for the next fiscal year with respect to negotiation and contract won’t be known to us until Q1 of the next fiscal year.

With respect to the submission of the Vote 1 budget, which needs to be transmitted to the Ministry of Finance by, I think, mid-January at the latest, the consideration, again, of the question before the committee is whether or not there is an interest in proceeding with the initial investment that’s been identified and presented as part of the submission today.

Because of the requirement-gathering process that’s been done to date and the comparison with other public sector organizations, we know that this is a significant project which will likely exceed that $4 million investment.

[2:35 p.m.]

However, because we don’t have that final number yet, if it’s the desire of the committee for us to return with further information and a more detailed update of the due diligence that’s been done to date, as well as the results of the NRFP process currently underway, we’re happy to take the direction of the committee on that next step. We’re very open to either direction.

L. Doerkson: What happens if, as we go through the process, we fall short? In other words, this number is not enough. What happens then?

J. Sims: I think in light of the fact that we’re already at the stage where we are, the staff did exactly what was asked of them.

Interjection.

J. Sims: Sorry. There will be a question in here somewhere, right? We all know how that works.

Interjection.

J. Sims: Okay. Sorry.

For me, considering where we’re at…. We’re not going to have any additional information that will help us before this document has to be handed into government, into the Finance Ministry. Also, understanding the fact that yes, it could be more than $4 million, but that $4 million, if it is more, it could be spread out over future years. That is there. But underlying it, all of it, for me is the organizational risk to operations.

I think when I look at the balance of that and then delaying this by yet another year…. The risks have been pointed out to us, not me but to somebody, for a number of years. These were not new risks.

Because of that, I’m back to where Mr. Kahlon, the minister, was, asking: is it possible to separate this element in the vote, which is what Mr. Kahlon asked, so that we can move on but voting on the whole package of A, or we going to move on this as two little components? That’s all I’m asking.

L. Doerkson: Perhaps I could ask my question again, Mr. Speaker. What happens if this number is not big enough?

In other words, my fear is, to the exact point that’s being made here, that time is of the essence. That’s what I’m hearing. If this number comes back and it’s $6 million, are we waiting for a year to make that decision, or are we simply approving a blank number here?

I don’t understand how this is going to be appropriate if we get the quote back and it’s double or whatever, 20 percent more. Is there an approval to go forward with that then?

Mr. Speaker: I think the question we have to look at is…. We have $4 million set aside in this vote. That gives us an opportunity to start and continue with that project. If we don’t have anything, then we are stalling it.

It could be more, no doubt about it. It would be more. But at least in the meantime, until we get the right numbers, we have the opportunity to continue with that project. Otherwise, we will be waiting for months and months.

M. Babchuk: I believe that there is a motion on the floor. I’m not sure if it was seconded, but I believe that’s what we’re on right now, just to take us back there.

I would like to just say I appreciate the member opposite’s concern about oversight. I think by having this conversation today, we’ve actually achieved that, and the Clerks and staff are very much cognizant to the fact that we’re going to need constant updates on this.

With that, I won’t be supporting deferring it or taking it off the table at this particular time because I do believe there is a requirement that we sent to staff through the subcommittee to get this into this Vote 1 budget and move forward. That is how I see it moving forward. But I do believe the oversight and the rigour of reporting has been made very clear to staff, and we will be seeing that in the new year.

Mr. Speaker: Shall we decide on that motion first?

Motion negatived on division.

[2:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: We are back to the discussion. Anybody else have any comments on it?

L. Doerkson: Just one final comment, Mr. Speaker.

It’s just that…. I’m completely clear on what we’re doing with the Armouries building. I understand we’re going to spend $650,000, potentially, getting drawings and a better understanding of what that project is going to look like, going forward.

Again, I suppose the question around this is just simply: is it enough; is it not enough? I’ll leave it right there, but I’m certainly concerned about that.

Honestly, I think folks listening to comments here…. It’s pretty easy to assign $650,000 to a business case for a potential project, but at least there’s clarity there. In this case, I’m sure that many people will have questions as to exactly what this $4 million will accomplish, if it’ll accomplish anything, because it simply might not be enough.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I appreciate very much the discussion and the decision that has been taken by the committee, but we will indeed commit to return to the subcommittee as soon as the nego­tiated RFP process, as soon as we have a vendor selected and additional information is brought forward.

I very much believe that it’s important for our members to fully understand the reason why — the current state, the environment with respect to ERP solutions. As Mr. Stone mentioned, they are significant undertakings and investments for organizations. We want to ensure that members have a high degree of confidence in our implementation strategy.

We are able, with your support, with respect to the $4 million on this investment, on this project, also to take us to Mr. Doerkson’s question. We can stagger the start to make sure that we have all of the information in front of you, and a detailed implementation plan before we begin expending those dollars in the new fiscal year.

I thank members very much for their consideration of that component of our request.

A. Olsen: I’ll just say that despite my inability to participate in the last subcommittee, that wasn’t the first conversation about this enterprise resource process. That was one of a long line of conversations.

In fact, as has been pointed out, earlier this year there was a decision to not go with a product that’s already being deployed across government — noting that, in fact, we’ve had a discussion about what the scale and scope of the needs of the organization are. We’ve been able to determine that the product that’s already deployed in other parts of government is not suitable for what we need.

We’re not working in an informationless environment here. I think where I was concerned was a different type of process. However, I believe I’ve been satisfied in this.

Ultimately, it comes down to: are we going to support an enterprise resource planning process to get started? In everything in all of the discussions leading up to this, I’ve been convinced that that’s the right approach to take.

That’s where my support for this project continuing is: the multiple meetings that we’ve had in discussing this at the subcommittee level and a commitment to updating our systems and getting that process underway and going now.

Mr. Speaker: Anyone else?

T. Stone: I think we’ve beaten this one to death, so I would support moving on, but just a couple of quick things.

One is to my good friend Adam. We don’t make deci­sions based on conversations. We make decisions based on business cases, based on actual numbers that correlate to what you’re getting. This is not that.

But what I moved, I lost. We’ll move on.

In terms of the process of that, I just wanted…. The vote that we just had — will our names be noted on that? I mean, I moved it, and then it was defeated, so it’s obvious how I….

Mr. Speaker: You can request that it’s included in the minutes.

T. Stone: That will be included in the minutes?

Mr. Speaker: Yeah, sure.

A Voice: At your request.

T. Stone: At my request. So I’m making that request.

Mr. Speaker: All right. At your request, the names will be included in the minutes.

Okay. If nothing further, let’s continue with the presentation.

[2:45 p.m.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Yes. I will take the next slide, which is the introduction slide to the capital portion of our presentation.

Mr. Doerkson asked a question earlier, I believe, with respect to the adequacy of the $650,000 investment on the Armouries. Did I hear that correctly? No. Okay. I’m not seeing that I heard that. Apologies.

L. Doerkson: I didn’t say that there was an inadequacy, if that was what you were suggesting. I was suggesting that it was clear what we were using those funds for. I certainly might have an opinion that that seems like a lot of money for a business case, but it’s at least clear to me, and I can certainly vote with good conscience on that item.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): Okay, thank you very much for the clarification. I’ll proceed, then, if there are no other questions around the table, with respect to the investments related to our capital budget.

Many of the capital investments are a continuation of multi-year projects that are related to our physical and digital infrastructure and, of course, grounded in our strategic plan. Similar to previous budget submissions to capital budget, investments will also provide key mitigation into the risks concerning our infrastructure safety and security. There are also one-time capital costs associated with the election.

In our presentation to the subcommittee on finance and audit, we provided a walk-through of these investments. But in keeping with our usual practice at the LAMC table, we tend to keep those conversations at a higher level in order to avoid undermining our commercial interests on the value of any specific capital project.

With that, I’ll look to my colleague Andrew to walk us through the capital budget submission for next year.

A. Spence: Overall, as shown on slide 22, the total capital budget submission for next year is $14.2 million. Shown in yellow on this slide is the $5.2 million budgeted for election-related capital for next year. Outside of these election costs, the capital budget submission is relatively flat when compared to the previous two fiscal budgets.

The breakdown of the capital budget by program area is presented on slide 23. Each of these program areas were presented to the subcommittee in detail and rolled up here for your information.

A. Olsen: I’m just wondering about the budgeted amounts for the last election cycle. I’m curious as to what we budget and what the actual is when the dust has cleared. In our regular general election years, what are we budgeting for elections?

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Sorry for what is about to be a non-answer.

We did not prepare an election-year budget in 2020 because the election, at the time, wasn’t anticipated. The last time we prepared an election year budget was 2017-​2018.

The election-related costs were just over ten percent of the overall budget submission. Unfortunately, due in part to the state of our systems, we were not able to track the actuals in relation to budget. Thankfully, with Kathy and her team on a go-forward basis, we will be able to report in the coming year what our actuals are in relation to budget, and that will help inform future planning for election year budgets.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions or discussion on the capital?

T. Stone: I’m just going to take us back to the Q1 financial update, the document on page 2, where there’s a capital summary or whatever. It goes to great lengths to talk about how one of the frustrations or the challenges that we have in our capital planning is the inability to carry funds over from one year to the next, and so forth.

In light of the fact that there are some pretty significant capital projects on the horizon — I mean, Armouries is huge — I appreciate that this briefing note says that the financial services is continuing to work with the Ministry of Finance to develop a budget and forecast process that will allow for multi-year projects to be funded in a more fluid and predictive manner.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’m just wondering if, Kathy, maybe you or someone could give us an update on where you’re at with those discussions. I get that it’s a priority, but I think it’s going to be a critical success factor that’s one of many that will need to be in place on the front end of these much larger capital projects that we’re anticipating are coming at us.

K. Humphrey: Yeah, thanks, Todd. With regard to that, our Vote 1 budget is just a single-year budget, compared to many of the ministries that roll out a three-year budget with some reprofiling of capital. We are working with the Ministry of Finance to help figure out how to have that sort of three-year capital process with our budgets as well.

The other thing is that we currently don’t include anything in the budget that hasn’t been formally approved by LAMC. As an example, we were talking about the Armouries building. We know that if the project moves forward at some point in some future year, we’re going to have a significant project ahead. Based on our current practices, we would not include it, what that looks like and what that number looks like, until it was officially approved.

That is something we’ll have to bring back to the subcommittees to have a discussion about: how do we include things that maybe haven’t been officially approved yet so that we can signal them into our budgets? The discussions that we’re having right now are mostly along the lines of: how do we include, in future budgets, things that we haven’t done in a current year?

This current year we don’t actually have any excess capital to carry over, but last year, had we had extra capital…. The anticipated process is that we will have a line item on our budget that will say “carry-over capital from prior years” to sort of earmark it into the future years.

Then on the rest of the projects, I anticipate that next year’s budget presentation will include multi-year expectations of where we think we’re going to be — from a capital and, hopefully, an operating perspective going forward — to expand that out, probably initially to a couple of years, and then, in a perfect world, out into four and five years as we build a more robust system.

Mr. Speaker: Anyone else?

A. Spence: We just had a bit of speaking notes associated with the breakdown, just for members’ awareness, in the composition of each of these program areas. The major capital infrastructure program includes a budget estimate for expected space modernization efforts, associated with next fall’s election, to accommodate the additional six members.

Building infrastructure upgrades related to perimeter security and ongoing precinct life-cycle-extension projects are also included in this program. The IT infrastructure program includes a budget refresh, election-related equipment and devices that are reaching the end of their useful lifespan, as well as key infrastructure investments to retire end-of-life networking, data centre and power management equipment.

Ongoing investments in both precinct and constituency office security systems are part of this program, as well as the life-cycle replacement of Hansard broadcasting infrastructure.

The minor capital program brings together many of the ongoing efforts to replace end-of-life operating equipment in our public-facing operations. As well, it establishes a capital budget for reconciliation and special initiatives. The formula-driven caucus funding is also included in this area.

A capital budget for the child care facility discussed earlier is included, with the assumption that the capital expenses will be recovered through the ChildCareBC. new spaces fund. A modest contingency has also been included that may be accessed, as per capital project review and approval policy.

Mr. Speaker: Anything arising out of that? Any questions, clarifications?

If not, then we would need two motions, right?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): That concludes, absolutely. That concludes the budget presentation. Again, we always welcome members’ questions or observations with respect to either this capital budget portion of the submission or any other aspects of the presentation today. We’re very grateful to each of you for undertaking the due diligence to ensure that we have clarified any expectations, and met the needs that you have identified as well, for the Legislative Assembly.

I would certainly welcome any ongoing discussion.

If not, the Speaker is anticipating, I think, consideration of some final motions.

[2:55 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The first motion is:

[That the estimates of expenditure for fiscal year 2024-25 for the Legislative Assembly for Vote 1 be approved, as presented.]

Moved, seconded.

Motion approved on division.

Mr. Speaker: The next motion is:

[That the Speaker transmit the estimates of expenditure for fiscal year 2024-25 for the Legislative Assembly for Vote 1, as presented, to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Committee.]

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved on division.

Mr. Speaker: That takes care of that item.

Any other business, Members?

T. Stone: Just again, it’s process-related, that our opposition will be reflected in the minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Yeah, it has been requested that the names would be noted.

Okay, any other business? None.

A motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 2:56 p.m.