The committee met at 12:03 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Approval of Agenda and Minutes

The Speaker: I call the meeting to order.

One thing I really want to request of members…. It’s a full agenda today, so I ask all members and staff to keep their comments very brief. We have so many things to talk about, and we have not much time.

Let’s go with the first item, approval of the draft agenda. Any changes to the agenda as circulated? No.

May I have a motion to approve.

Moved and seconded.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Okay. Then let’s go to item No. 2, approval of the draft minutes of the March 4, 2024, meeting of the committee.

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Number 3 on the agenda is an update from the Clerk.

Clerk’s Update

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

Good afternoon, Members.

I will try to be brief. There is a high level of activity underway in the administration at this point in time, and I would like to provide you with the following information.

Of course, the administration is focused very much on supporting the current session. Team members from the Office of the Clerk, the Parliamentary Committees Office, the Sergeant-at-Arms office and Hansard Services have been very busy supporting the work of three chambers and parliamentary committee meetings.

Since the opening of this fifth session, at the outset of this particular sitting week, there was a total of 414 hours of sittings and committee meetings broadcast by Hansard Services.

My very sincere appreciation to all staff who are directly supporting proceedings during this very busy time.

[12:05 p.m.]

I also have a number of other items to update you on with respect to work in other parts of our organization.

With respect to our information technology team, work is nearing completion on the migration to a new external website for the Legislative Assembly. The migration is planned for late June, following the conclusion of the sitting period, and it is expected to be a low-impact transition to a new website that strengthens the resiliency of our current web infrastructure.

In partnership with the Sergeant-at-Arms office, the information technology team also ensured the modernization of 21 constituency offices in the last fiscal year, with new modernized security systems. Additional constituency office sites are planned for implementation in this fiscal year as well.

With respect to our new client services department, members will know that we launched our client care service desk on April 15. This is the start of a shift to a new service delivery philosophy and posture to position the assembly to move to a single-window approach for members and staff to access services and supports available through the administration.

It has been a steady launch over the past three weeks, and feedback from members and staff has been very positive. We are now focusing this team to be the central point of all onboarding and offboarding activities with respect to the dissolution of the current parliament and welcoming members at the outset of the next parliament to follow.

Also, with respect to election readiness, I’ll mention…. Members may be aware that we held our first transition seminar with members not seeking re-election on May 1. Additional seminars are planned in June and September.

As part of our election readiness work, there is also upcoming renovation work occurring in the chamber to add the additional six desks. Precinct services continues to work with engineering partners to assess the readiness of the substructure and renovations and upgrades in the chamber, including the repositioning of desks, rewiring and the addition of desks, which will take place between July and late September.

With respect to space planning…. There is also a number of other related projects underway this summer, including the addition of six new MLA offices in the east annex. That work is expected to take place this summer.

Finally, I’ll mention…. I’m pleased to advise members that we recently received the results of our second biannual employee engagement survey. The results were very positive, with 81 percent participating in that survey. The overall results are very positive, with improvements in many areas, including the overall level of engagement, measures related to a positive workplace culture, employee empowerment, leadership and management relationships.

I wanted to thank all colleagues within the administration, including the Clerk’s leadership group, for contributing towards our healthy workplace culture at the assembly. Following an all-staff meeting a few weeks ago to review the overall results, our next steps will be to focus within each department to review individual team results and identify action planning for the year ahead.

I will close by extending, as well, my sincere thanks to all members of this committee, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, for their ongoing support of the Legislative Assembly administration, including resourcing to support our organization, including learning and development, which are key aspects of our healthy workplace culture.

I’m happy to answer any questions that members may have. That concludes my report.

The Speaker: Any questions or comments or clarification? None.

Thank you, Kate.

Let’s move on to item No. 4, the Legislative Assembly administration strategic plan 2024-25 refresh.

Legislative Assembly
Administration Strategic Plan

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): This first decision item involves the presentation of the refreshed 2024-25 strategic plan for the Legislative Assem­bly administration.

This is the final year of our three-year strategic planning cycle. Members will be familiar with the overall purpose and principles and goals, which have not changed in this iteration of our plan. The plan is dynamic and is designed to be updated and refreshed every year to meet new challenges and opportunities for the administration.

Each goal is focused into action through an objective and key initiatives. It’s the key initiatives, which have been updated and are outlined in the covering briefing note, that capture the objectives and initiatives for the year ahead.

The recommendation is to approve the strategic plan as presented. Of course, we’re always very open and welcome any questions and feedback from committee members.

[12:10 p.m.]

The Speaker: Any questions? No clarification.

Then we need a motion. It would read that the 2024-25 refresh of the Legislative Assembly administration strategic plan be approved as presented.

Moved. Seconded.

Motion approved.

The Speaker (Chair): Okay, the next one is item No. 5, reconciliation action plan 2024-2028.

Reconciliation Action Plan

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

I am pleased to present the reconciliation action plan to committee members this afternoon as recommended by the subcommittee on administration and operations. The multi-year plan covering the time span from 2024 to 2028 outlines commitments and actions that the Legislative Assembly will undertake to contribute towards reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

The purpose of this plan is to enable our institution to strengthen relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, and it details practical commitments that will demonstrate our collective support for reconciliation and lay the groundwork for future engagement and relationship-building.

The plan was guided by input from the Speaker’s Indigenous advisory committee members and was also shaped by input, feedback and consultation with First Nations leaders and communities as well as with our Indigenous Members of the Legislative Assembly, caucuses and House Leaders.

The action plan includes five key commitments with the following themes.

First, building on a commitment with respect to understanding. We focus on the recognition of historic actions that have impacted our relationship with First Nations within the province of British Columbia.

The second commitment focuses on education opportunities, the provision of educational opportunities and resources to support members and staff.

Inclusion: a review of rules, practices of the House to incorporate a consistent and respectful approach to ceremony and to House proceedings.

Representation: identifying opportunities to reflect Indigenous culture within the Parliament Buildings and grounds.

Commemoration: outlining our commitment to design and construct a memorial with respect to residential schools and the children who were lost to their families and communities.

The Speaker and I certainly welcome any questions or comments from committee members today following consideration. Should the committee so approve, it is intended that the action plan will be released at an event hosted by the Speaker in the Hall of Honour tomorrow.

I’ll be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

L. Doerkson: Just a couple of comments that I wanted to share. I think we shared these at the last subcommittee meeting, but just my concerns around the consultation. I am grateful for the visits to Cariboo-Chilcotin, and certainly throughout the province, but as I noted, Dan and I…. I just wanted to note it again today that there are varying degrees of opinion on much of the conversation that we are having here at the Legislature, of course.

I’m grateful that there’s been conversation with Chief Sellars, but certainly there are many others, just in my riding alone…. I think it’s imperative that we have their thoughts and their opinions and, certainly, understand where they come from on this topic of reconciliation moving forward.

The Speaker (Chair): Thank you. Member. I just want to say this.

First of all, I’m very thankful to the subcommittee members for their review of the report and recommendation to bring it over here. As I said that day and also many times before, this report was done with consultation through my advisory committee, on which Chief Willie Sellars is one of the advisers.

This document is not a static document; it’s an evolving document. We would be reaching out to a lot more communities across the province as well. As when we produced the initial report, we went to all the caucuses to present it there and sought their guidance and also the input and feedback.

As a result of that, we took back their advice, and we decided that we are going to need to continue to move across the province and talk to more people.

I want to say thanks to all the caucuses for their feedback and guidance as well.

[12:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wanted to say thank you for your work on this. We appreciated the ability to provide feedback, and we do see it reflected in this.

I just want to thank you for that.

T. Stone: My colleague Lorne, who sits on the subcommittee…. I know that he went into a fair bit more detail about concerns relating to just how broad or not broad the engagement was to arrive at this point.

But I don’t sit on that committee, so I’m just going to take a minute here to express some perspective in terms of the official opposition caucus, many of whom have a lot of First Nations communities and different nations in their constituencies, including myself.

The fact that many of the chiefs in my own riding, for example, don’t even know that this process is underway was and is concerning to me. That is certainly what has been reflected to a number of our colleagues. As a matter of principle, we totally support ongoing efforts to enhance and foster reconciliation.

There’s a lot that’s contemplated in this draft action plan that would have pretty significant impact — and arguably, a lot of which would be positive — on the Legislative Assembly and how it operates and what it looks like.

I think we very much support taking additional steps to ensure that we’re all working hard to make sure that Indigenous peoples and First Nations feel like this building, this precinct — the people’s House, so to speak — belongs as much to them as it does to any other British Columbians and that a big part of getting there is to ensure that Indigenous people see themselves more reflected in what happens in this place and the proceedings and history and culture, and so forth.

We have supported that, and we will continue to support initiatives that advance that reconciliation. But our caucus believes that reconciliation is only successful if everybody’s walking together at the same time and as broadly as possible.

There are First Nations communities — the vast, vast majority, again, aren’t even aware that this is happening — that haven’t had the opportunity to provide input. I appreciate and take at face value the commitment that this is just a starting point and that there would be ongoing consultation or engagement moving forward.

It is equally true with respect to non-Indigenous British Columbians and ensuring that all the people of this province have an opportunity to weigh in and afford their perspectives on potential changes in terms of how this place operates, what goes on in here, what it looks like and how to ultimately better incorporate Indigenous history and Indigenous peoples into this place.

I do want to acknowledge that our caucus was, indeed, very grateful that the Speaker and the Clerk came and participated in a fairly…. Robust is maybe a good word to describe the conversation. I think it was intended to be very productive. Based on the feedback from the Speaker and the Clerk, I think that was how it was taken.

Coming out of that that discussion, we were very appreciative that one of the items that’s been contemplated, which is some form of an apology on behalf of the Legislative Assembly…. There would be more time taken to really broadly reach out and engage on that particular matter with the goal of making sure that we get it right — expediency not being the most important concern but that we get it right, if that is to take place at some point in the future.

The decision to move that to outside of a sort of politically charged atmosphere of a pre-election period and into a fresh runway — a four-year runway of the next government, whoever that is, with the Speaker, whoever that is, the parliament being made up, however that looks — is the appropriate thing to do.

[12:20 p.m.]

With that in mind, we also think that the broader action plan needs to be dealt with in the same way and that…. I’ll just say it, and it’s not easy to say: there’s a fair bit of concern and frustration with the fact that there’s an event happening tomorrow that was scheduled weeks ago and that has a fair bit of significance wrapped around it. It was all scheduled and set up before LAMC had had the opportunity to formally embrace, or not embrace, the action plan that underpins the event’s purpose tomorrow.

The decision has already been made that this action plan will be adopted, and it’ll feature at the ceremony tomorrow. For the record, again, on behalf of our caucus, I don’t believe that that’s the way things should operate here. We should be having these discussions. We should be making these decisions. Then decisions are made that result in events, celebrations or whatever, after the fact. The cart’s a bit before the horse, frankly, with respect to this.

With all that, again, with the utmost of respect to our Indigenous friends…. You know, there are Indigenous MLAs in this parliament. We have Ellis Ross in our caucus. We have other members who are married into Indigenous communities.

We are very sensitive, very respectful of this. We just don’t think that broad enough engagement and consultation has been done with British Columbians generally and, very importantly, the couple of hundred First Nations out there that should, at the very least, know that this is even being contemplated, that it’s actually happening. That is not the case, from our perspective.

The two members of the official opposition will not be supporting the motion to adopt this report today. We say that with a heavy heart but with the utmost respect and encouragement for launching a proper, full, broad engagement with British Columbians and with Indigenous communities to ensure that an action plan that is adopted by this place is as fully informed as it possibly can be, recognizing that it becomes a living, breathing document from that point forward.

That said, we would like to move an amendment that the action plan that the language and the recommendation be changed so that it reflects this action plan being considered by the next parliament, after the next election and that the opportunity of a new government, a new parliament and a new Speaker to pick that up at that point will ensure that the most appropriate, broadest consultation and engagement on this is done, that’s inclusive of all First Nations and all British Columbians to whom the people’s place belongs.

The Speaker: Thank you, Todd. I appreciate your comments.

I just want to clarify that when this report was presented to the subcommittee a couple of weeks ago, I did not hear a word back from your caucus or somebody that it was not going to be accepted or reported.

On the question of reaching out to a wider Indigenous community, we have been working very closely with the First Nations Leadership Council, which represents Indigenous people throughout British Columbia. They are in touch with many First Nations through their own structure, and they have supported this.

As you know, to set up an event like what we are proposing tomorrow, it’s not just like we call somebody: “Hey, would you please come over and have lunch?” No. It takes lots and lots of effort. So when we presented it to the subcommittee at that time, we realized that we would be getting support and that then we’d proceed with it.

Kate, do you want to say a few things on that?

[12:25 p.m.]

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): I’ll just mention that as outlined in the plan that is before members this afternoon, there is a recognition that this is a starting point and that additional work will need to be done with respect to engagement with Indigenous leaders and communities across British Columbia.

In order to bring the action plan and its commitments to life, as outlined on page 6, there is a commitment to continue to engage with the Speaker’s Reconciliation Advisory Committee with a renewed membership and mandate in the next parliament to develop a framework for regular engagement with Indigenous leadership organizations, and also to continue, in the next parliament, the Speaker’s listening tour to meet with and hear from Indigenous peoples directly in their communities.

Prior to any of the actions actually coming to life and to be implemented, all of those will rely very much on being shaped and guided by ongoing consultation, not only with members of the next parliament but also with Indigenous leaders and partners, who will be supporting and guiding this work.

A. Olsen: This has been a conversation that has been going on in various committees for weeks, months. This is a process that the Speaker and the Clerk have been engaging all caucuses on for the entire time. It has showed up at other committee meetings. It has moved forward to this process. LAMC is the business meeting where we bring together all of the work that other committees have done and brought forward for us to discuss today.

The process was altered. The process that was originally proposed to us was changed, based on advice from one or more of the parties. The fact that I, as a member of this, am hearing about this for the first time today in this public meeting and not in one of the in-camera meetings that we had before or in one of the many conversations that we’ve had in the hallway — that’s the offence. That’s what’s offensive, not the process that the Clerk and the Speaker brought forward.

The offence is the fact that there was no notification brought forward that a group of people that are representatives in this place have suddenly got a level of cold feet that they’ve made no indication of when it comes to reconciliation.

I think what we’re witnessing here today, and I just want to put a bookmark in it, is a case study in exactly how we got to where we are today in this province: “It’s always a better time to apologize to First Nations people later. That’s the best time to do it.” Well no, actually, the history of this province has proven that it has always been a better time to never do it. The second-best time to do it is later, by somebody else. “That’s when, when we don’t have to do it ourselves. We’ll let somebody else take the responsibility of that.”

That’s offensive — always pushing reconciliation to another time. That’s what’s happening here. We’re just going to push it to another time. It’s no wonder why, actually, First Nations people approach this institution the way that they do in the courts, because frankly, we’re left no choice.

This is offensive, this whole process today. Not the whole process leading us to today — that’s not been offen­sive. That’s been thoughtful. That’s been flexible. That’s been adaptive. We’ve been moving this process along in just exactly the way a responsible, mature organization should.

What’s offensive is that we come to the public meeting today, and now all of a sudden, out of nowhere, the official opposition decides that it’s time to not just pump the brakes but slam the brakes on — emergency brakes, the entire thing — on not an apology, which already has been disrupted, the basic apology that this institution….

[12:30 p.m.]

We have a list of 800 offences to Indigenous people in this province that have been collected by our library to 1972 or something like that, so not even the most recent offences. This one might be added to that — should be added to that, in my opinion.

That’s part of this process, a clear indication that this institution does owe an apology for how the behaviour has been. I’ll absolutely, with everything I have, be voting against an amendment. It is offensive, and I think it will be seen as that.

We continue to refer to the politics of the silly season, and then we behave that way. And then we behave like silliness. Are we just creating these self-fulfilling prophecies in this place, or are we allowing ourselves to behave this way because we expect this to be silly season?

It doesn’t have to be. We don’t have to behave in a silly way. It’s not a requirement of the last few weeks of a legislative session. We have not been acting that way all the way up until this point. But right now, I feel that we’ve just basically created a self-fulfilling prophecy, and some members of this committee have given themselves justification for doing this.

I think that all this does is make it incredibly more difficult, as we’re in negotiations with people with whom, when we find ourselves face to face in court…. We just lose all the time. If the province, the Crown, was winning ever, it might be worthwhile. But we just don’t. We just have to have a different approach, and this isn’t it.

The Speaker (Chair): Thank you, Member.

Before I recognize the next member, I also want to point out that this action plan was also reviewed and supported by the subcommittee on administration and operations on March 6, and the draft at the end of April. That was also discussed and reviewed at that time.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I share the frustration from the member from Saanich North. We’ve been having this conversation for so long. It’s almost been a year, actually, since this conversation started. It came to various caucus committees. It came to our caucus. Feedback was provided. To hear this in the last minute….

I appreciate that the election is coming up and folks are thinking about that. But I think we have a responsibility to this Legislature and to communities that we’ve been working with to proceed. We won’t be supporting this amendment.

I’m just very disappointed in the last-minute nature of this posturing that’s coming.

That being said, we’re not supporting this amendment. This is important work. We’ve been doing this work in committee collaboratively, all parties. It’s just very frustrating, to be honest.

J. Sims: I also will not be supporting any amendments. Reconciliation is something that every member in the House supported, and this action plan that’s before us is not new. It has been through various iterations.

Also, reconciliation is not a one-day thing. Based on the information that the Clerk and the Speaker had, they’ve arranged for an event tomorrow to present this action plan. It’s the beginning. It’s not the end. It’s the beginning.

Therefore, I’m hoping each and every one of us in this room can support this to go forward. This work is absolutely critical, and it comes down to where words are not enough. We actually need to start taking action and continue to take action.

I’m going to encourage everyone to reconsider and please support this.

[12:35 p.m.]

N. Simons: I just want to say that this is a non-partisan document. This is an initiative of the Legislative Assembly.

To suggest that by putting it off with a new Speaker or a new government, whatever…. It’s missing the point. This is something that will raise awareness of this living document and this living action plan that will bring more communities to the understanding of what we’re doing. To suggest that we have to wait until everybody is fully familiar with every aspect of this plan, I think, is kind of missing the point.

If it were a policy manual that was to be followed as if a rulebook, I can see wanting to wait until we were sure of every single rule. But this is not that. This is the opposite of that.

The process of reconciliation, and I know that that word is used a lot…. The process of coming to terms with and addressing the historical wrongs and to somehow make efforts to right some of those wrongs isn’t something that we should keep putting off. This is an ongoing process. It will not be over. We need to formally say that this is an ongoing plan, and this is what I imagine the event and the discussions leading up to this have been anticipating.

It’s surprising to me that the opposition, at this moment, at this late hour, suggests that we cannot announce something that will be an ongoing, living document that will be updated, improved and built upon. I think that’s just the wrong way to go.

I agree with the member from the Third Party and my colleagues here.

B. Banman: I’ve listened to both sides on this. The question that I have in my mind right now is: how is it that an announcement was organized and scheduled…?

Well, I can appreciate that people want to get this done. I appreciate that the process that it went through assumed that it was going to happen. I believe it will happen. Where I sit on this is that I think it’s almost…. There is always the chance, at any meeting, that there could be new information that comes forward and a change of heart.

My question or my comments are surely procedural in nature. I think it’s rather presumptuous to organize something a day after…. Before the actual meeting here actually takes place to officially formalize it, I think it’s…. While I get the nature, and I get the intent, and I understand the full meaning, I think it’s incredibly presumptuous that any decision, regardless….. Especially something that has as much impact as this. I question why we ended up organizing an event before a public meeting had been held.

I would have thought that you go through the process, you end up with your public meeting that takes place, the vote is then finalized, and then a meeting is organized. But it appears to me as if it’s like, “Oh my goodness, we’ve only got a week left in the session. We need to do this now,” and it was organized.

[12:40 p.m.]

My point of concern is that it seems to me…. I’m free, if someone can correct me, if I’ve gotten it mistaken. But I heard the expression “the cart was before the horse,” and I am stuck wondering the same thing. How is it that we organized basically what would be considered an event to announce a decision prior to the decision actually being fully endorsed in this meeting?

I just think it is incredibly presumptuous. And odds are that it would go through, generally, considering that this committee pretty much rubber-stamps what happens in subcommittees. It’s not just this event. I’m talking about other decisions that this committee may have moving forward. I’m concerned that there was some presumptions that were made on that, and I can understand why there are some people that find that uneasy.

To me, take what it is we are talking about outside of this. The fact that, I think, should concern people is we organize something, or the Clerk’s office organized something, prior to it actually being officially endorsed by any committee, whether it be LAMC or anything else.

I sit on the fence. I’d appreciate some clarity on that as to how we got to that point, how it was organized, because if, by chance, this now is rejected, which I don’t think it will be, the embarrassment as a result could be catastrophic.

I question why it was not waited until after everything was done and then the meeting was organized. That’s my question I’m trying to get my head around, as to why this was done. If someone could give me some clarity on that, I would be very appreciative.

A. Olsen: Yeah. Sure, I’ll provide some clarity.

We’ve been having multiple conversations about this. Everybody that’s sitting around this table has everybody else’s cell phone numbers. The embarrassment is not on the fact that we got to where we’re at today. The embarrassment is that this is the first time that this is being brought up, in the public part of this meeting.

If we were going to cancel that meeting that’s happening tomorrow, if we were going to cancel those people that are coming here upon our invitation, we could have done that privately.

The embarrassment is how this committee is functioning right now and the opportunity that’s been taken to publicly derail something that doesn’t just set back one political party in the advancement of reconciliation but sets back this entire institution of government. Yet that’s what Indigenous people can expect in this province. Games-playing about our health and well-being.

Send me a text. Let’s have a conversation. The Speaker’s been doing his work. I can confirm that on the record to all British Columbians that are paying attention to this. Our Speaker of this House has been doing his work. Carefully. Perfectly? No. Is that possible in this situation? No. But in a good way with a good heart.

What’s happening here is not good-hearted. It’s games-playing with Indigenous people and Indigenous issues. Pretending like this is some sort of surprise to the members of this is an embarrassment.

Calling together the House Leaders to say, “Hey, maybe we should hold off on this entirely,” could have been done for weeks.

[12:45 p.m.]

The Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Michele, you go first.

M. Babchuk: Thank you, Speaker.

I have to say I’m really disappointed in the conversation that’s happening here. As a member of this committee who has been at every meeting, who has followed this for almost a year, who has gone to every subcommittee meeting, who has engaged at every level that I possibly can on this, I find it really disappointing that people around the table that haven’t participated at that level are actually entering into this conversation. I feel very, very strongly for the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Yeah. I just can’t express how disappointed I am in the fact that this isn’t going to happen. I thought, as a non-partisan legislature, we were actually moving forward into a really great space. Is it perfect? No. Do we know it’s a living document? Absolutely. Absolutely. But I am very dismayed about the comments that I’m getting from across the aisle here.

Speaker, I’d like to call the question.

The Speaker: Kate has her hand up, and then after that, we will do it.

M. Babchuk: Thank you.

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

I wanted to respond to some of the questions that have been raised. I know the Speaker and I have been very careful with respect to the proposed event tomorrow to let all participants know that any event was subject to the approval of this committee, so there has been clarity around the qualifications and the requirement for LAMC approval.

At the same time, over the past few months, we have worked very carefully with individual members as well as caucuses and House Leaders to try and ensure that we had support in place before we began planning the event to ensure that it could take place during the sitting period. We had the understanding that all members would want to be a part of that.

We thought we had that support, so we then proceeded to plan the event to act upon the advice that we had received through the engagement exercise to show the actions resulting from the input that we had had heard to show our commitment and good faith.

If it helps members with that context, I thought I would share that.

The Speaker: Thank you, Kate.

I also want to add one small comment. Until even before this meeting was called to order, I did not get any indi­cation whatsoever that the official opposition will not be supporting this.

We had been, as Kate said, on various times, talking to individual members, we have been talking to caucuses, we have been talking to Indigenous members, we were talking to the House Leaders, just to make sure that everybody is updated on time, at every step.

That’s where it is.

The question has been called on this, on the amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

The Speaker: On the main motion.

Motion approved on division.

The Speaker: All right. Let’s move on to item No. 6 on the agenda, new policy….

Interjection.

The Speaker: It’s also noted that the official opposition’s two members have voted against that motion.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): The minutes will show that.

The Speaker: The minutes will show that, yes. Thank you. Everybody else on the committee today has supported.

Interjection.

The Speaker: For the minutes, yes. Item No. 5 — that is what you were talking about?

Item No. 5 on the agenda was a recommendation from the subcommittee on administration and operations to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee about the reconciliation action plan.

[12:50 p.m.]

It was brought forward to this committee for approval, discussed and debated and then we took a vote on it. The minutes will indicate that except the two members of the official opposition, everybody else supported it.

Let’s move on to item No. 6, new policy 7310, constituency office leasing.

Artour.

Constituency Office Leasing
and New Policy 7310

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief, in the interests of time.

The recommendation from the subcommittee on admin­is­tration and operations reflects LAMC direction from October 2023. It helps realize a business shift in the constituency office leasing space. The decision before you today is the proposed new policy and the transitional directive for the upcoming transitional period to provide certainty in policy application.

With that, I’m happy to answer any questions.

The Speaker: Any questions?

J. Sims: So moved.

The Speaker: Moved and seconded. Thank you.

Now we need a motion. Do you want to read the motion before we…?

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Yes, I certainly can.

I think what MLA Sims moved was that policy 7310, constituency office leasing, be approved as presented.

Motion approved.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): The second motion is that the transitional directive accompanying policy 7310, constituency office leasing, be approved as presented.

The Speaker: It has been moved and seconded.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: Okay. The next item on the agenda is new policy 6520, reporting suspected wrongdoing.

Artour.

Reporting Suspected Wrongdoing
and New Policy 6520

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I will be brief.

This proposed policy and recommendation from the subcommittee on administration and operations follows a commitment from some years ago to establish an arm’s-length whistleblower mechanism for Legislative Assembly staff. That is for staff that fall under the direction of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

The decision before you today is to approve the policy in principle. What that will allow us to do is to work with the Speaker to realize next steps and to identify a disclosure entity to be appointed under the policy. When we come back to the subcommittee on administration and operations, and subsequently, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, with that proposed appointment, we will also provide information on costing.

We haven’t gone out to market to see what might be out there and what service provider may be available. We will provide that information to the subcommittee and to LAMC as well.

The motion that is proposed to you today is that policy 6520, reporting suspected wrongdoing, be approved in principle as presented.

The Speaker: Moved and seconded.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: The next item is new policy 7410, appropriate use of IT resources.

Andrew.

Appropriate Use of IT Resources
and New Policy 7410

A. Spence: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Policy 7410 was recommended by the subcommittee on administration and operations in March, related to the appropriate use of IT resources by members and employees of a member or caucus. The policy follows best practices that have been adjusted to reflect the needs of our organization.

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

The Speaker: Any questions?

J. Sims: I move that policy 7410, appropriate use of IT resources for members and employees of a member or caucus, be approved as presented.

The Speaker: It’s been seconded.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: The next one is policy No. 5410, information security.

Andrew.

Information Security
and New Policy 5410

A. Spence: The second policy, our information security policy, was recommended by the subcommittee on administration and operations in April. Like the appropriate use policy, it’s based upon best practices and outlines the roles and responsibilities for all users.

I’m happy to answer any questions you may have on this policy too.

J. Sims: I move that policy 5410, information security, be approved as presented.

The Speaker: It has been moved and seconded.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: The next one, 2023-24, quarter 1, financial update.

Kathy.

Consideration of
Quarterly Financial Statement

K. Humphrey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This report highlights the period ending December 31, which is quarter 3. There are a few updates, but the details are in the report.

We are currently wrapping up the current fiscal year-end. All the invoices are in, and financial services is now working on the non-cash accounting entries that are required to comply with the accounting standards, with the goal of completing our financial statements in the next few weeks. Then we will have a more detailed summary of the year-end.

[12:55 p.m.]

The Speaker: Okay. Any questions? No.

J. Sims: I move that we adopt the…. No? Okay, fine. Thanks.

The Speaker: No further questions?

Any other business?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of the Legislative Assembly): One last one, the policy development workplan.

The Speaker: Oh, policy development workplan, item No. 11.

Legislative Assembly
Policy Development Workplan

A. Sogomonian (Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the bells are ringing and members need to go, but very quickly, we are required on an annual basis to deposit the policy development workplan with the committee. It just outlines our policy priorities, so members are aware.

We also, of course, always welcome any feedback that members may have.

I’ll leave that there.

The Speaker: Any question? No. Thank you so much.

Any other business?

The next item is to adjourn the meeting.

It’s been moved, seconded.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 12:56 p.m.