March
15, 2017
The
Management Commission met at 6 p.m. in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
All right, folks, is everybody ready?
Okay.
Welcome to the Management Commission meeting for March 15, 2017.
Before
we begin, I'll start on my far left with Ms. Michael and I'll ask each Member to
introduce themselves.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, St. John's
East Quidi Vid.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail
Paradise.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Lisa Dempster, Deputy
Speaker.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, Burgeo La
Poile.
MR. BROWNE:
Mark Browne, Placentia West
Bellevue.
MS. KEEFE:
Marie Keefe, Clerk's Office.
CLERK (Ms. Barnes):
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tom Osborne, Speaker.
So we
had an in camera meeting prior to the start of this televised meeting. We have
to report on the decision at the in camera meeting and that is that there was an
approved payment of $400 for annual registration fee to the Newfoundland and
Labrador Association of Social Workers for the Child and Youth Advocate. That's
for reporting purposes only.
On Tab
2 of your books, we require the approval of the Commission for the minutes dated
February 27, 2017. The proposed motion would be that the Commission approves the
minutes of February 27, 2017, meeting.
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder, or any questions?
Moved
by Ms. Michael; seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Approved.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
Did you have question on it?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just a quick comment. It
refers to the MHA for Topsail there a couple of times in the minutes. It should
be Topsail Paradise.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, so noted.
For the
minutes it should be Topsail Paradise, not Topsail.
Okay.
Item 2, under Tab 2 is a letter of appeal. There is a decision required. The
Member for Grand Falls-Windsor Buchans is appealing the denial of payment by
Corporate Members' Services for expenses incurred by that Member. The
expenditures were rejected as they were incurred in the 2015-16 fiscal year, but
not submitted for payment within the 30 days, by the end of the year. The
expenses are totalling $67.80. While there is sufficient funds remaining in the
Member's allocation to pay for the expenses had they been submitted in time so
this is pretty much procedural.
The
proposed motion, the Commission approves the payment of expenses totalling
$67.80 for the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor Buchans with the expenses to be
paid within the appropriate allocation for the 2016-17 fiscal year.
Any
questions or comments?
Moved,
seconded.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Tab 3,
there are two financial matters under Tab 3. The first requires the Commission's
approval and the second is for reporting purposes only. The Budget Transfers
Ratification, which is the one we need a decision on. The Transfer of Funds
Policy, April 2008 requires the House of Assembly Management Commission approval
to transfer funds to or from the grants and subsidies main object of
expenditure. If a meeting cannot be scheduled, authority is delegated to a
quorum of four members to approve the transfer of funds prior to processing the
transaction but the approval must be ratified at the next Commission meeting.
The two
transfers were approved by a quorum of at least four members. The first budget
transfer was required for the transfer of funds to the Third Party caucus
salaries to provide funds to process severance and paid leave costs. The second
was required to transfer funds to the Legislative Library and Records Management
salaries, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate salaries, and the Office of
the Official Opposition caucus salaries to provide funds to process severance
and paid leave costs.
There's
a briefing note with greater detail, Members I'm sure have read. The proposed
motion is that the Commission ratifies the approval of the following transfer of
funds, budget transfer number HOABT2017-015 to transfer funds to the Third Party
caucus salaries to provide funds to process severance and paid leave.
Budget
transfer HOA did you want to do those individually or as a group?
CLERK:
One is fine.
MR. SPEAKER:
One is fine, okay.
So
budget transfer number HOABT2017-22 to transfer funds from the Legislative
Library and Records Management salaries, the Office of the Child and Youth
Advocate salaries, and the Official Opposition caucus salaries to provide funds
to process severance and paid leave costs.
Do we
have a mover and or a seconder?
Moved.
Anybody
seconded?
Seconded.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Carried.
The
financial information where there is no decision required, the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act requires that financial information be
reported to the Commission on a regular basis. This is for reporting purposes
only. The financial statements provided to the House of Assembly service, caucus
offices and the statutory offices are for the fiscal year April 1, 2016 to
December 31, 2016. The Member accountability and disclosure reports outlining
expenditures of each Member are provided for the same period.
Any
questions or comments, concerns?
Okay.
So under Tab 4, we have Legislative Amendments. There are two items under Tab 4
regarding proposed legislative changes and both require the approval of the
Commission. Item number 1, is the proposed legislative amendments for final
approval at meetings held on November 30, 2016 and December 7, 2016. The House
of Assembly Management Commission approved a number of recommendations of the
2016 MCRC review, which required amendments to the
Members' Resources and Allowances Rules.
The proposed wording for the amendments received first approval of the
Commission at its February 27, 2017 meeting.
In
accordance with the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the proposed amendments
were tabled by me in the House of Assembly on March 7 and distributed to each
Member. A notice of the amendments was posted on the House of Assembly website.
Once final approval by the Commission is received, amendments which establish
new allowances will be brought to the House as a resolution. All other
amendments will be forwarded to the Office of Legislative Counsel in preparation
for publication in the Newfoundland and Labrador Gazette, at which date they
will become effective.
There's
an attached briefing note which contains the proposed wordings. The proposed
motion is that pursuant to subsections 15(5) and 20(7) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, the Commission gives final approval to the
proposed amendments to the Members'
Resources and Allowances Rule subject to final wording by the Office of
Legislative Counsel.
Do we
have any questions or comments?
Do we
have a mover or seconder?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just one question, Mr. Speaker. On 29 and 30, proposed amendments. I'm just
looking for a little further explanation on the change that's taking place.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
For
those who are viewing, that is: the purchase of food, non-alcoholic
beverages and other supplies for meetings with constituents or other members of
the public in relation to constituency business and food and non-alcoholic
beverages for other constituency related events provided that the member or his
or her constituency assistant is in attendance at those events.
So my understanding is if you were to supply pizza to a
school class, for example, coming in to do a tour of the House of Assembly, that
would be approved, but either the Member or the Member's constituency assistant
would have to be present. I mean, there are other examples, but that's an
example.
Am I correct in Mr. Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, so basically what we're saying is that the purchase it's hard to look at
it and not have the context of the whole thing. So if I take a constituent to a
restaurant, it's not covered.
MR. SPEAKER:
Not covered, no.
MR. A. PARSONS:
But if I go out and buy food and bring it to someone
MR. SPEAKER: If
it's a constituency meeting or a constituency event or, for example, a school
class coming
MR. A. PARSONS:
What if I have a constituent here in St. John's who is in for medical treatment,
because I deal with which I have all the time. There are guaranteed citizens
from my district down there now.
Again, I want to make sure that we have a full
understanding. If I go down to the hospital and I take them and their spouse for
a meal, which used to be per the rules, is that covered? So are we saying I can
bring them food from the grocery store or a pizza but if I sit down at the Tim
Hortons and have something I'm just wondering about how this works.
Again, it's different than me taking the Speaker out
because you're not a constituent but if it's a constituent
CLERK: It's
food for meetings with constituents or a constituency event. So as long as
you're meeting with a constituent and if you brought a plate of sandwiches to
that meeting
MR. A. PARSONS:
But you can't have that meeting in a place, you
CLERK: You
can't go to a restaurant and have that meeting.
MR. SPEAKER:
You can't go to a restaurant or a pub or
MR. A. PARSONS:
I can go to the store I'm trying to understand; sometimes the logic is
escaping me here.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So you can go to a deli and buy it at the counter and go out in the car and eat
it, but you can't eat it in the deli.
CLERK: The big
issue around this one was, in some cases, Members were attending community-based
events that were not necessarily a constituency meeting and looking to bring
different community groups were bringing food like sandwiches or soft drinks or
something like that to it, and that's really the aim of this.
Nothing changed in terms of food for meeting with
constituents. That's always been on the books. This was the ability to bring it
a community-based event in your constituency.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't know, maybe I'm being sorry;
you had your hand up.
MS. MICHAEL:
I was going to do something
I understand which clarifies it for me; it might help you if my light is on.
My
understanding would be, for example, if a community group, I'm going to say
Chalker Place because that's a community group. If Chalker Place were to call me
and say we're having an event, Lorraine, can you send stuff? The answer would be
no. But if I were going to be going or Marianne were going to be going and
actually be there at the event with them, then we can cover it. That's my
understanding.
MR. SPEAKER:
That's the intent of the
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, and that's how it was
written in the recommendations, I remember, of the Commission.
MR. P. DAVIS:
If at the event, if I may,
you conducted constituency business.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, the fact that
MR. SPEAKER:
No, just that you need to be
there.
MS. MICHAEL:
My understanding is the fact
that it's constituents in the constituency who are having the event is what
makes it valid.
MR. SPEAKER:
It's designed, I believe, to
prevent you from just sending a tray of sandwiches to an event but not showing
up. So if you show up to the event, you can send a tray of sandwiches.
CLERK:
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the
issue before was that you had to host the meeting in order to bring the food
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
CLERK:
what this amendment does,
it allows you to participate in a community event and bring the food as long as
you or your constituency assistant in terms of the ability to provide food for
a meeting with constituents, nothing has changed there. That's always been on
the books and that remains in place.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You just can't do it at a
restaurant.
CLERK:
You just can't meet at a
restaurant.
MS. MICHAEL:
Can't do it at a restaurant.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay, and maybe this sort of
the closing the barn door after the horse is gone because I get the whole point
about sending food off and I'm not showing up. I get that, but I have some
places where it's hard to get food. I just find it hard to find the difference
between going out and getting a plate of sandwiches at Breen's and going to the
grocery store and getting a plate of sandwiches, what is the actual difference?
Some places it's harder to do that than others, right. Like I have some places
where there might be an actual restaurant where we can have the meeting but
there's no store where I can go get a plate of sandwiches, so I can go get bags
of chips.
Do you
see what I'm I get the whole point, but I'm thinking that the wording is very
restrictive when it doesn't need to be restrictive. I get the logic but do you
see what I'm saying?
MR. SPEAKER:
To your point, the MCRC did
specifically make a recommendation that would prevent Members from hosting a
dinner at a restaurant and paying for the dinner. I mean, that was specifically
ruled against
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. But if I'm going to my
constituency and again, it's different because I spend half my time in here
and I have lots of constituents in here; it's just the nature of it. I can't go
to a certain spot and get a plate of sandwiches, I can't go to a Manna Bakery or
a Breen's or wherever, I got to go to the grocery store?
MR. SPEAKER:
No, no.
MR. A. PARSONS:
It says meal expenses from
restaurants, pubs, delis so we're cool?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
CLERK:
This amendment just gives effect to recommendations 29 and 30 of MCRC 2016; 29
is the recovery of meal expenses from restaurants, pubs, delicatessens and the
like under the constituency allowance shall be prohibited. Members shall not be
permitted to claim this expense as part of their meal per diem. If incurring an
expense as an adjunct to a community event in the district, the Member or his or
her constituency assistant is required to be present at the event but is not
required to host the event. Those were the two recommendations, and this is how
it translates into the rules.
MR. SPEAKER:
The difference in the deli,
I mean if you brought sandwiches to a meeting, you're fine. If you sat in a deli
at a table and got table service, you're not.
MR. A. PARSONS:
And the cost is the same?
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, when you submit
the receipt, how would Corporate Members' Services know where you were? So if I
go to the Robin's in Arnold's Cove, I have a receipt there for sandwiches, how
do they know if I took them to a meeting or if I ate them in the Robin's?
MR. SPEAKER:
I guess we're relying on
your honesty.
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
It seems to me that we
already accepted the recommendation. So if we reject this, we still have
accepted the recommendation, unless we want I mean, I can't see undoing that,
but we did accept the recommendation.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We'll deal with this in four
years and see what the next MCRC says.
MR. BROWNE:
Bring it on.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other questions or
comments?
CLERK:
Want me to answer your
MR. BROWNE:
Yes, I am interested to
know.
CLERK:
Members are responsible for
the accuracy of their claims. That's actually a section in the rules. So
Corporate and Members' Services would in completing your claim, if the deli is
the only option for food, a tray of sandwiches brought to a meeting at whatever.
Okay?
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do we have mover and/or a
seconder?
Pardon
me?
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) motion?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
Moved.
Anybody
seconded?
Seconded.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Item
two is Approval of proposed amendment to the
Members' Resources and Allowances Rules
establishing a lump sum taxable benefit for accommodations.
At its
meeting held on December 7, 2016, the House of Assembly Management Commission
accepted recommendation 21 of the 2016 MCRC Report to establish an annual lump
sum taxable benefit for private and temporary accommodations in the capital
region. At the February 27, 2017 meeting, the Commission confirmed the mechanism
for calculating the lump sum taxable benefit.
An amendment will be required to the
Members' Resources and Allowances Rules
to establish the annual lump sum as a taxable benefit. In accordance with the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, the proposed amendment requires approval
of the Management Commission before being brought forward as a resolution to the
House.
The Law
Clerk drafted the proposed amendment which should have been attached as a
briefing note and it is now. I think you have it. That was omitted originally
but I think you have it.
So the
proposed motion: Pursuant to subsections 15(5) and 20(7) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, the Commission approves the proposed
amendment to the Members' Resources and
Allowances Rules establishing a lump sum taxable benefit for accommodations
subject to final wording by the Office of the Legislative Counsel.
Any questions or comments?
Do we have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Mr. Browne.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Under tab 5, at the meetings on November 30 and on December
7, the Management Commission accepted recommendations 11 through 15 of the MCRC
Report respecting MHA advertising. As a result, amendments are required to the
advertising policy for Members of the House of Assembly, March 2011.
A summary of the amendments required to the policy are
included as briefing note 2017-008 in tab 5: The House of Assembly is
recommending additional amendments to include guidelines for publications such
as newsletters, posters, door hangers, post cards and other householders which
is in section 7.0, and recommends the title of the policy be amended to
Advertising and Publications Policy for Members of the House of Assembly to more
fully reflect the revised content.
Section 7.0 will also address the issue raised by the
Member for St. John's East-Quidi Vidi in her correspondence of February 8, 2017.
While Members are not permitted to pay for advertisements via a private medium
with a meeting notice unless it complies with the business card format and size,
they are permitted to create and distribute posters with such notices provided
it complies with the provisions of the policy related to publications.
The draft Advertising and Publications Policy for Members
of the House of Assembly is attached.
The proposed motion is the Commission approves the proposed
Advertising and Publications Policy for Members of the House of Assembly,
dated February 2017.
Any
questions or comments?
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I presume we're going to be
going to this draft. Because this is where my comments are coming from, is going
to be the draft guidelines.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Previously, we had
Advertising Policy. Now it's Advertising and Publications Policy, and we really
looked at it very carefully.
First
of all, there's stuff in here in this draft that we hadn't talked about when the
draft was being presented to us, and I think there's some stuff that is quite
unclear. Already our caucus have run into problems with interpretations that are
being based on this draft, which we haven't even approved yet. I don't want to
go there. I wanted to say that we have to have the discussion here on this, and
it's very disturbing, some of the interpretations that are happening.
First
of all, putting publications in with advertising; it is two totally different
things. I want to speak generally first to the issue, the fact that under
Publications, which is section 7 of the draft guidelines, it includes: notice of
meetings; messages of welcome; messages of greetings; messages of
congratulations; recognition of special weeks/days/events at the
national/provincial/ constituency level. That the primary purpose of the
publications publications such as newsletters, posters, door hangers, post
cards is to provide constituents with contact information, constituency office
hours, location, and other information such as what I just read out.
I don't
know who did the drafting, but I don't think those who drafted it fully
understand what I believe the role of what we call our householders is. I fully
understand that householders cannot be partisan politically. I fully understand
that they're not there for the parties that we are Members of, they are there
for us as MHAs, but when I read section 7 and I also read that in relationship
to section 5.2, which is extremely important, because at the end of section 7 it
says, Costs for publications containing any of the non-allowable content
outlined in section 5.2 of this policy cannot be reimbursed.
When I
go to 5.2, there's a statement there that says: Statements which advocate a
particular position, or attempt to influence public opinion on a matter before
the House of Assembly. I believe there's an interpretation in that, that is
implying and when you look at number 7 and you see what it says is allowed
you can't deal with issues. And when I say deal with issues, is if something is
coming up in the district that is an issue for people and they want information
on it, I think your householder, that's what it's there for.
I
agree, I don't think it's there to say: Oh, Lorraine Michael did this private
Members' motion in the House of Assembly and blah, blah, blah. I don't think
it's there for that; however, if there's an issue that's an issue of the
constituency, than I think you should be able to have a paragraph on the issue.
In the
one I'm working on right now, I don't have an issue per se, but I'm saying that
I am going to be holding a meeting in May for the constituents. Here are issues
that have been presented to me, get back in touch with me and my constituents
are going to be given different ways to get back in touch with me to let me
know which one is important to you. When they do that, I'll make a decision on
the type of meeting I'm going to have and the topic.
If
that's not covered, I'll pay for it out of my own pocket, but that should be
what my householder is about. My householder should be a communication back and
forth and it's more than and this is what's upsetting me, you can tell I'm
upset notice of meetings and a message of welcome, or a message of greetings,
or a message of congratulations or recognition of special weeks. It's more than
that. It's how I communicate.
I've
seen householders. I've seen Speaker's householders, I've seen my own. I don't
know if I've seen others at the table out, but I've seen others. I got my own
from my MHA no, I didn't, I mean from the MP. I'm my own MHA, but I'm seeing
the next door MHA.
I mean,
if we're not using our householders to communicate, and this is all we're doing,
then it's a waste of bloody money for us to be doing it. I'm sorry; it's a waste
of money. We shouldn't even be spending the money on them if that's all that
we're doing, what is written there.
So I'm
very disturbed by this. My colleague, right now, has not been able to put out
her householder knowing that it's going to get covered, because she's been told
just about everything in it doesn't fit doesn't fit from something that
we haven't even discussed yet and passed. Now, that's a reality of what's
happening. I'm really upset.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, I think this wording has been there for some time, but I hear your point
because I've had other Members approach me with the same concerns. I'm not sure
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, I was waiting for our public meeting to have the discussion. This is where
we're supposed to be discussing stuff.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, I'm not sure if it used to be more broadly interpreted and it's more
tightly interpreted now, but I understand your concern.
I know Mr. Davis wanted to make a comment.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Before we hear Mr. Davis's comment, at this table, at the Management Commission,
do Members have the flexibility to change the draft policy here?
We do? Okay. Well, that's the answer. Maybe this item gets
deferred until the next meeting and Members get together, come up with a policy,
bring it back to the table and see if it's acceptable to the Management
Commission.
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
I think
that may be a good idea, because there are several areas here of concern that I
have.
To your
comment, Ms. Michael, on your colleague afraid of a reimbursement, I can tell
you there are cartloads of flyers gone out from the Government Members' Office
this week already. Loads of them gone out. So they're continuing, the Government
Members are continuing to send out flyers under what we know exist as parameters
today.
But the
number of areas of concern, Mr. Speaker, is for me and I differ a little bit
from Ms. Michael in what the publication and a publication that she spent a
fair bit of her time talking about was the newsletters, posters, door hangers,
post cards, et cetera. Because I think that it is a valuable way to communicate.
For many Members, it's a very important way to communicate with their
constituents.
I do
think there is a level of partisanship that exists by the very job that we do,
because we're in partisan positions, we have circumstance where government on a
regular basis utilizes public funds to promote, advertise, discuss, share,
provide information on programs and services provided by government, new
programs that the government has worked on.
And it
may be a program where an MHA had a significant issue in her district or problem
with the program rolled out where it may have had a negative impact, or didn't
have the positive impact that constituents wanted in his or her district, and a
newsletter or flyer or postcard might be an important way to communicate with
your constituents of how: Why is that program the way it is? Why did you not
defend it or why did you not ask for this piece of information? It may be an
important way for an MHA to communicate an alternate viewpoint on a particular
program or service or policy of the government.
I see
what appears, to me, to be an unfairness, where government MHAs I'm not
targeting government, just whoever happens to be in government have the
ability to communicate those types of positions, but MHAs who have an alternate
view are prohibited from communicating a viewpoint or political viewpoint or
what may be an important issue for their constituents, which is partisan in
nature in some respects but is, more importantly, something that has an impact
or importance to that Member's particular district.
There
is a whole number of other issues that I have, or concerns or questions that I
have. When you look at 5.2, section 5 is about content: criteria on allowable
and non-allowable content. Section 5.1 is allowable content; 5.2 is
non-allowable content. Another very simple example is 5.1 allows for official
symbols advertising of social media presence such as Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram or Snapchat and those types of things.
So a
person can put that symbol on but they actually can't put their Snapchat address
it's actually prohibited. Social media handles and links to social media pages
are prohibited. So if someone says: Oh, good, you're on Facebook; I can
communicate with you on Facebook.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Can't find you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
They can't find you because
it's prohibited from being included in your information. So if a person does a
flyer and sends out a flyer and their Facebook address or their Twitter address,
or handle or Snapchat or whatever is listed there, then what this says is that
the House can deny the cost of that publication because a non-allowable item has
been included in it.
The
other topic here, which I think we need some discussion about, is about
advertising. That's under section 6 under advertising. Advertising a message of
welcome and congratulations are not permitted, unless the purpose recognizes a
week, a day, an event at a national, provincial or constituency level. I raise
it here because I think it's worthy of clarification and understanding.
In most
areas of the province, I would think, a 100th birthday of somebody would be an
important event. In some communities, it would be a huge event. It might be the
event of the year in a small community or small location. Where the House may
determine well, that's not a national, provincial or constituency level it's a
town, but it's not a constituency level; it's an event. But some may interpret
it as being something very important, which I would, and my fear is what if the
House says no, that's not really the intention of it. So I think there's some
clarification and discussion needed.
Your
suggestion that you just made, Mr. Speaker, that maybe we have some informal
discussions where we can go through this in an in-depth format and see if we can
come back with a recommendation as Members of the House and the Management
Commission, I think it would be a good process.
MR. SPEAKER:
The only caution that I
would make is I mean, the MCRC has identified informal discussion of the
Management Commission as an issue. I would ask that each party just send
representatives not as the Management Commission
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
but representatives of
parties to talk about draft wording and bring it back.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And to bring it back. Yes,
absolutely.
MR. SPEAKER:
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Because of the fact that
people are at different points maybe in the process of doing householders this
is not an approved document and I think that we should go with what our practice
has been under whatever our rules are at this moment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Until such time if we
could move on this expeditiously. I know we've got a constituency week coming up
next week; hopefully, we'll have a Management Commission meeting the following
week prior to the Easter break. I'm hoping that maybe it's possible to have
draft wording for this for the next Management Commission meeting. Everybody
MS. MICHAEL:
Further to my point, though,
we are coming to the end of the fiscal year and so the householders that are
going out now are in the budget for this year.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
If allowing for the time
it even takes 10 days now for us get stuff printed
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll accept the motion to
that extent in a second.
I think
what Ms. Michael is proposing is that the current rules for householders apply
until this draft wording that would just be the case anyway, I think, would
it?
CLERK:
Well, the issue we have is that the Commission already accepted the MCRC
recommendations regarding the advertising.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, I'm not talking about
the advertising. This stuff that's here about the householder, the publications,
that was not in any recommendation. This is interpretation.
MR. SPEAKER:
So I'm not even sure if we
need a motion, Ms. Michael. I think we just operate under the former rules for
householders.
MR. P. DAVIS:
If I can just make a further
comment to that, Mr. Speaker.
A
little bit further to what Ms. Michael had raised, the other aspect of it is I
know of Members right now who have this kind of work that's at certain stages.
And I think it would be fair as well that once we adopt this new policy that we
allow a period of time for someone who has work in progress, or they have a
printing order in and that type of thing, to allow that process to finish. So if
it be 30 days or 45 days or 60 days after the implementation, after it's passed,
before it becomes effective.
MR. SPEAKER:
That seems reasonable.
I
think, Clerk, with this, the Management Commission does have the ability to edit
the draft proposal.
CLERK:
Oh, goodness, yes. That's
why it comes here.
MR. SPEAKER:
That's why it comes here,
okay.
So do I
have a motion to defer this? We can have the same composition, one Member, two
Members from the Official Opposition, three from government, if that's
acceptable, but have a group of Members outside of the Management Commission
work on the draft.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, certainly.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The only other question on
that before we get off topic, Mr. Speaker, is I've heard some discussions that
the new rules are now being interpreted by staff in the House of Assembly. So
are we under the understanding that right now the old rules are still in place
until this policy
MR. SPEAKER:
For householders?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, I
MR. P. DAVIS:
For the items covered under
the draft policy, under advertising and publication policy.
MR. SPEAKER:
Well, if somebody wants to
make that motion I'll certainly
MS. MICHAEL:
I'll make that motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
So the motion
MS. MICHAEL:
That at this moment we are
under
MR. SPEAKER:
The old rules.
MS. MICHAEL:
the old rules with regard
to householders.
MR. SPEAKER:
Until the next Management
Commission, at which time we will adopt
MS. MICHAEL:
Until we come to an
agreement on document guidelines.
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible.)
MS. MICHAEL:
Under the advertising and
publications policy.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Do we have a seconder?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'll second.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Approved.
Okay,
Tab 6: motions respecting recommendations 43 and 44 of the MCRC report.
At its
February 27, 2017 meeting, the MHA for Topsail received unanimous consent to
table a motion to rescind the following decisions, which were made on December
7, 2016 meeting of the Commission with respect to the MCRC. And those were
recommendations 43 and 44.
I can
read those out if Members wish, but I think we're familiar with the
recommendations.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'd like to speak to that,
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, give me a moment.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion carried and
recommendations 43 and 44 reverted to being outstanding.
The
MHA for Topsail also gave notice that at the next meeting of the Commission he
would put forward a motion to adopt recommendations 43 and 44, as presented by
the MCRC.
The
MHA for Burgeo La Poile also gave notice that at the next meeting of the
Commission he would put forward a motion requesting the Management Commission to
explore the option of moving to a defined contribution pension plan for Members
elected in 2015 and beyond.
.
At the
December 7, 2016 meeting, the Commission adopted recommendations 31-38
respecting the severance provisions for MHAs. Those Decisions are in effect.
However, the grandfathering provision needs to be dealt with; that's
recommendation 44. Whatever we do with 43, we can choose to deal with or not
deal with 44. I think 43 is the one that's under discussion right now.
The
Member for Topsail Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So Mr.
Speaker, this is a matter now that's been discussed here, and discussed publicly
for some time. I've given a considerable amount of thought to this before coming
here today. Prior to 2003, by way of a little bit of background, the books of
the House of Assembly were closed to scrutiny, and we know that there were many
changes that occurred. MHAs made up their own rules on remuneration and we all
know what the consequences of that were.
During
the 2000s, the Auditor General came in and subsequently that led to Justice
Green, who came and made recommendations on how a full overhaul of how the
House of Assembly operates. Judge Green was very, very clear. He was crystal
clear, in fact, that he wanted an independent body to make recommendations on
MHA pensions.
He
actually stated in Recommendation 79: In the future, matters of pension policy
related to the pension benefit structure for MHAs should be referred to the
review committee on Members' salaries, benefits and allowances constituted under
the new House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act as
recommended elsewhere in this report, as part of the committee's mandate as a
matter of course so that they can be addressed in the same context as salaries
and other key compensation arrangements for MHAs.
Judge
Green wrote that the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act is legislation that created
the Management Commission, which we are Members of here today. I think it's
important for us not to forget why that was created. In his report on page 3-62
Judge Green described the very thing that concerned him.
So just
think about this. It appears that, with the changes in the
Internal Economy Commission Act in
May 1999 and May 2000, the concept of parliamentary autonomy in Newfoundland and
Labrador attained a new level: The IEC had been freed from the constraint of
being bound by recommendations of an independent commission in relation to MHA
compensation allowances. Through legislative change, such recommendations were
no longer binding on the House.
And
again on page 4-49, The requirement that the recommendations of an independent
commission be binding has been repealed. The IEC now has the power to amend the
recommendations of an independent commission be binding had been repealed. The
IEC now has the power to amend the recommendations of the independent commission
as it sees fit, is what Justice Green wrote.
The
thing that bothered him exactly is what we're discussing here today and is
before us today. He also stated: It is time to return to a more principle-based
system. The need to rebuild public confidence requires it. I fully agree with
that statement to this very day. As had been stressed many times throughout
this report, transparency and accountability are essential to the maintenance of
public confidence. A compensation-setting process is engaged in under a veil of
secrecy, by people who make the decision in the context of a conflict of
self-interest and public duty, will not pass muster. An independent review
process that takes place in the light of public scrutiny is the least that is
required.
Under
section 16 of Judge Green's bill, required an appointment of an independent
committee. In his words, he called it the Members' Compensation Review
Committee, which we are discussing responses from that committee today. And they
had to spend up to 120 days preparing a report respecting pensions for Members,
among other things, and the operative word here is independent. He used the
word independent over 100 times in his report. He intended for pensions and
other remuneration to be dictated, not by us, by an independent body.
Mr.
Speaker, when the Management Commission made its decision on December 1 and
considered those decisions very soon after, I respectfully submit that what we
did was wrong. The public knew it and we quickly heard about it, and so we
should have. The public told us that we need to listen, that we should have
accepted the recommendation of the independent committee established under Judge
Green's legislation and we should have done it then, and we need to do it now.
The
Members' Compensation Review Committee was created to take the politics out of
these matters. To do anything other than accept the recommendation of the
independent committee, I believe would be a further error by this Commission and
by Members of the House.
If we
as Members are accepting the committee's recommendation and want to call for a
further study, then we have the option to do that under the act, but it must be
in compliance with the act. Section 16 of the act deals with this by saying the
House of Assembly shall at least once key word is at least once during each
General Assembly by resolution appoint, upon those terms and conditions that are
set out in the resolution, an independent committee to be called a Members'
Compensation and Review Committee, and here's the work that they did.
It was
called that, the Members' Compensation Review Committee; not more than three
persons, none of whom shall be a Member, to conduct an inquiry and prepare a
report on salaries, allowances, severance and pensions to be paid to Members. So
at least once means that it can be done again if we so desire and, in fact, I
believe that the MCRC, we still have access to today. The report was in
November, and I believe we're still within the timelines of accessing advice and
work of that Commission.
There's
no provision in the act for any process, other than the one laid out in section
16, to make recommendations on MHA pensions. Any other process is really what I
believe to be out of line or out of context, or out of what should be allowable.
If any
one group of Members, in this case the government caucus, sets out to
orchestrate a process, then, again, I would submit, it's not going to pass the
smell test. It's completely out of line with the letter and spirit. If we want
to do something further than the MCRC recommendation, we as a Commission have
the authority to go down that road and to seek that advice.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that's why my recommendation is being made. That recommendation 43: The
Defined Benefit Plan as outlined in Appendix H of the Morneau Shepell Report,
Option 2, as outlined by the Members' Compensation Review Committee, shall
apply to Members of the House of Assembly who were first elected on or after
November 30, 2015 as the motion which I've already given notice of.
MR. SPEAKER:
I do feel compelled I
agree with much of what you've said there, but as one of the Members of the
Assembly and there's always great value in having longevity, because you
remember things. I remember the Green report, as we called it, the
Accountability and Integrity Act.
Just to guide Members; my comments are meant to guide
Members. Decisions of the Members' Compensation Review Committee, and I believe
that's probably why the public were upset, the Management Commission can't give
a greater benefit than what the MCRC proposes, but the Management Commission is
quite capable and within its bounds to give a lesser benefit than what the MCRC
proposes.
So I think the decision and part of the reason I think
there was public backlash, was by grandfathering the 2015 Members, it was giving
a greater benefit than the MCRC proposed. It's up to Members of the Management
Commission I'm not going to say whether the proposal by the Member for Burgeo
La Poile is greater, the same or lesser. That's for Members of the Management
Commission to decide, but the Green report, the Green act did allow for the MCRC
to make recommendations and the Management Commission could adopt and accept
lesser than what the MCRC reported, but not greater.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right and I understand your position. Justice Green, with respect to his
report, was very clear on
the need for independence and referred to it many, many times during his report,
that the independence, the decisions should be done independently away from
Members. That's how we ended up with the Members' Compensation Review Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, there are
MR. P. DAVIS:
So I get that, Mr. Speaker,
but what I'm suggesting is we should accept what the MCRC had recommended. If
the Management Commission decides: Well, let's have a further discussion or a
further new process, then let's go back to the MCRC that's in place right now
and have that discussion with them or adopt a new one to make further reviews. I
think the current one could probably do that.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm going to recognize Mr.
Parsons now in a moment. Before I do that, I'll make one final comment on this
and I won't insert myself into the debate any further.
I am
aware that subsequent Management Commissions had not accepted certain MCRC
recommendations on increasing MHA salaries over the years and MHA salaries
stayed the same. That was publicly acceptable because it was a lesser amount
than recommended by the MCRC.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I understand that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, I guess what this comes
down to is there was the recommendation to accept, I think it's 43. What I've
presented here today, that's tabled and is on the record, is a letter from
Morneau Shepell who is also the same group that did the work, I think, for the
previous MCRC on the pension recommendation.
What
I've presented here now, as it says in the letter that's attached, a high-level
comparison of the key benefit provisions recommended by the MCRC and those
proposed by the caucus. Basically, it's the MCRC was to continue to provide
benefits on a defined benefit basis versus the defined contribution basis.
I
recognize the fact that this information was just presented to all the Members
here now and to the staff, but there are some highlights in there which I think
need to be put out there, that basically it does offer a greater savings of
taxpayer money. It results in the crystallization of the unfunded pension
liability. It also results in millions in savings.
I have
to be honest; I wouldn't expect anybody to sit here now and to maybe vote on
this right now, based on the fact that it's just been presented. I don't think
that's fair, but I think it's important that I put it out there.
I would
also suggest that I don't support voting for something now when there's been
another very, I think, strong proposal that is put forward. I know everybody
needs time to look.
I know
what Chief Green said, and I think the main policy goal that Chief Green had was
to prevent politicians from taking greater benefit from themselves, especially
quietly. I don't think there was a policy goal of Chief Green to allow for
Members to take steps through the Management Commission to do less than maybe
what was recommended. I don't think that was to be avoided.
What
we're presenting here actually represents a reduction of the resources that are
allocated. I would suggest going back to the public commentary, I think this is
something the public may be very interested in seeing and having considered.
There
is a legal opinion out there that pensions can be amended. In fact, section 16
of the act, also presented by Green, says amendments to pensions are allowed. It
clearly says that as long as you don't exceed, you can look at it. He also said
pensions can be amended also comes from Green. So that's the same
accountability, integrity act.
What
I'm suggesting, I understand the motion that's put forward fully, but I think
given what we've presented here, I think there's nothing that prevents the
Management Commission from perhaps taking the time to look at something that may
be in the best interest of the public and of Members. I don't support voting on
a motion when there's another proposal put forward that at least should be
looked at and examined. Again, that comes down to we also vote on these things.
I
realize it can't be done now. I also think we should I don't believe in voting
on anything without giving it due diligence and proper scrutiny. That's why I
would suggest we will be having a meeting very shortly to talk about some other
issues that I think may have been recommended by the MCRC that we're also
proposing to change.
So I
think my suggestion and my commentary here is that we take the time to at least
look at this proposal which represents savings to taxpayers, and that it is not
contrary to the policy or the legislation put forward by Chief Green.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay. Mr. Browne is with us
today. I know he's declared a conflict of interest, I think at least twice on
this previously.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
Well, just on a point of
order. He removed himself from the Chamber, and I'll leave it to your
discretion, Mr. Speaker, but I just point out that
MR. A. PARSONS:
Maybe Mr. Browne can go up
and watch it on TV.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, I wasn't finished.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, but my
point is I'll try again. My point is that Mr. Browne had removed himself from
the Chamber and the discussions on this on at least two occasions. I just point
out to the Speaker that he's in the room now. He's declared a conflict in the
past, and I'd ask you to determine if that conflict still exists or if
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If Mr.
Davis was paying closer attention, he would have noticed that I did consult the
Law Clerk and asked should I leave and she said I could stay here and just not
vote. Now, if it's your will, I will certainly leave the room, that's not a
problem.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. I will consult the Law
Clerk for my own benefit.
MS. MURPHY:
He cannot vote.
MR. SPEAKER:
He cannot vote. He can sit
in the room but not vote? Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, then to speak to the
point of order no, it's sort of a different point of order I guess.
If Mr.
Browne is not voting, then I'm not sure we have the capacity to vote on anything
with regard to this because there has to be two government Members, I think,
present and at least one Opposition voting.
MR. SPEAKER:
The only way that can happen
and I can put it out there for government's consideration, but the only way
we're going to get two government Members on this particular vote is if a Member
of the Management Commission were replaced.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, it will have to be voted on first. Have we not voted on other things where
two government Members recused themselves and we voted previously where there
was one government Member and say three Opposition Members? I think we
MS. MICHAEL:
Did we?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm pretty sure. Because we
dealt with this topic back in December, and there was a vote and the two
government Members recused themselves. Now, I don't know, if he removes himself
do we have quorum to vote? I don't know how that works.
MS. MICHAEL:
The quorum is done according
to the numbers of government and
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, we still have a quorum.
I'm being told by the Law Clerk and the Clerk that we would still have a quorum.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. Well, then speaking to
Mr. Parsons, I'm glad he said he doesn't expect us to deal with this tonight.
I'm not prepared to get this document and deal with it this evening.
MR. SPEAKER:
It's reasonable to can we
have a motion to defer 43 again then? Is that acceptable, to give people an
opportunity to look at this?
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I may, I think that's
what I suggested, is that there are two motions and that the one I've put
forward contains significant information which I fully realize requires time.
This is a significant decision and I don't agree on voting on one when there are
two present and we're coming back in a couple of weeks' time anyway. I think the
smart move here is to defer both to allow proper consideration of this pretty
significant proposal so that we can have a proper vote based on two actual
motions.
MR. SPEAKER:
Can we have a seconder for
that motion?
MS. MICHAEL:
I'll second it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Pardon me?
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. By all means, yes,
before we vote.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
We just
got this passed to us at the start of the meeting. It's a 13-page document, it
looks like. I'm actually just turning the cover now and looking at it for the
first time. I had a couple questions. I wasn't sure how this was generated and
if we're going to have a discussion on the contents of this report, I think it
would be valuable to have a little bit of a discussion on that as well.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It appears to me that this
is a report that was provided to government and it references a proposal by the
Liberal caucus. I'm just wondering if you, Mr. Speaker, or maybe if Mr. Parsons
can give us a little bit of background of the origin of this report and how it
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, absolutely.
Before
we do that, can I consider this tabled by all Members? I know Mr. Parsons
distributed it earlier.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, sure.
MR. SPEAKER:
But it officially has to be
considered tabled.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Absolutely, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I can say is two
things. Members of the caucus have gone out and led this proposal and gone out
and done the work. I realize it needs some work to be done, but I would also
suggest further to that, that arrangements can be made to have officials
available to answer questions from all people so that we have a full
understanding of the genesis of this, an explanation of this, whether it be
Morneau Shepell, whether it be the Department of Finance who obviously
administer our pensions. I think that can all be arranged and I think it's
actually a good idea.
We
wanted this out there because it needs to be looked at, but we also need the
time to do it. I agree with the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi. I fully
expected this needed time but it's better to have the time and do it right.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
Lorraine Michael, and then Mr. Davis.
MS. MICHAEL:
I would like to say that in
doing our, whatever we decide we're going to do, I still think we should be
looking at the MCRC Report which has a substantial section on the pensions and
what they went through in coming to the recommendation that they did. We really
didn't do that.
We
voted on the recommendations and got to the state we're in today, but if we're
going to use this document, I think we should also be using the documentation
that was used by the MCRC as well.
I have
to say, I'm really glad the government caucus is large enough that they can
afford to do this, but there's no way our caucus would have been able to go out
and pay for this kind of work.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
I was
going to ask the question actually, if this is actually caucus funds that are
being used for this or is this a government expense?
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll be happy to have all
that answered by the individuals that have led it. Again, I'm a Member of the
Management Commission but I'm not the Member who led this. In fact, I don't even
know if this would apply to the three of us that are sitting here. So I'm
prepared to offer up people to answer every single question that gets asked
about this proposal and everything else, not a problem.
MR. P. DAVIS:
My point for having that
information, I think it's important information. I'd like to know who ordered
it, who authorized it and how is it being paid for? Because we as a caucus had
discussions not to breach any caucus discussions but we had discussions
amongst ourselves about looking at alternative plans as well. It sounds like Ms.
Michael has made a similar comment.
We
don't have the caucus funds to do it, but if government is providing a service
to a caucus to provide reports to them so my point would be is that my caucus,
and arguably Ms. Michael's caucus, should be afforded the same opportunity to
engage with an actuary to ask for a report again, I haven't looked at it, so I
really don't know what's contained in it at this point in time but a report on
possible pension arrangements.
It
seems a little bit odd for me that a caucus of the House of Assembly can direct
a government department to engage with an actuarial study and I don't know
what it cost. My experience has been that actuarial studies generally come with
a price tag. So anyway, I just make that point. If that's what we're doing here
and the caucuses are entitled to do that, we'd like to have the opportunity
potentially to do the same.
MR. SPEAKER:
It wouldn't be the first
time it's happened.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, we've got a proposal
here that saves the taxpayers plenty of money, and I'll be happy to offer up
everybody that's necessary to answer any questions that come up to deal with
this. But I come back to the main point, which is I don't agree on voting on A
if we have B that's there ready to be looked at and examined. We're talking
about something that's pretty significant and can save money. I think we should
take the time to ask all the questions and get all the information and do it
right.
MR. SPEAKER:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think before if we decided
on that kind of a meeting, I still think that this is a document that was
presented by Mr. Parsons to the Management Commission, and I think there should
have been a covering letter explaining more than what we have.
He
can't tell us what the process was, he can't tell us where it has come from in
that sense, and for that reason I think there should be a letter from the
Liberal caucus to the House of Assembly Management Commission. I think they're
the ones who should have presented this as the Liberal caucus with a covering
letter explaining what this is about.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I may, we've put a
proposal out there because we want again, this is something that will save the
taxpayers millions of dollars. It's put out there. I wanted it on the table
right now. You'll notice the date on it is March 15. We wanted it there now so
that we wouldn't vote on something, knowing that there's something here. I'm
sure caucus, Morneau Shepell, anybody that's anybody will be happy to answer all
the questions whatsoever.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not
questioning that; I don't think Ms. Michael is questioning that either. We
appreciate anybody who brings a report and asks us to act on a report should be
prepared to come to the House of Assembly and defend or answer questions on the
report.
The
question for me is: If this was done for the government caucus, who is paying
for it? Is it coming out of caucus funds, or is the government paying for it?
It's addressed to Maureen McCarthy, the director of Pension Administration
Division, Department of Finance. That, to me, looks like this was asked for by
the Department of Finance.
If
that's the case, then I would like the opportunity well, first of all, I want
to know: How did that happen? How does a caucus direct a department of
government to engage with an actuary on a proposed question for the Management
Commission? There are three tiers of governance in our society, and two of them
are the House of Assembly, which is separate from government. Government is
separate from the House of Assembly. So if Members of the House caucus of the
House of Assembly ask for government, then that's an interesting question for
me, which I think is important for us to have answered.
Secondly, I'd like to know what the cost of it was. And I get what Mr. Parsons
is saying; it's going to create savings. Well, if my caucus wants to engage with
an actuary, we may be able to create savings as well, in a different way. But we
don't have the capacity as a caucus to do that. We don't have the funds as a
caucus to do that. I'm not sure that all of us running out asking for actuarial
reports in any way we want and having them is probably the best way to approach
this. That's why, one of the reasons I argued earlier, the MCRC is the
independent voice who is asked to look at these matters.
Now we
have a caucus, a Liberal caucus the front page of the letter twice refers to
the Liberal caucus presentation directing government to do an actuarial study.
Brought to us at 6:05 this evening, at the start of the meeting. So my question
is, before we go further on the discussion, I think it's important for us to
know Mr. Parsons can't provide the information who ordered the study, what
was the cost, what was the condition of the order of the study, and does the
same access to actuarial experts exist for my caucus, or for the Third Party
caucus, or to the Management Commission to look at other potential scenarios.
MR. SPEAKER:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Putting it very clearly the
way Mr. Davis did, I want to know who directed Maureen McCarthy to have this
done. Very, very specifically who directed because and I'm probably repeating
in a different way what's been said. I'm not saying this shouldn't have been
done but if it were going to be done, it should have been something that came
from the Management Commission. We should have been the ones who are asking for
this kind of thing. Who directed Maureen McCarthy, because we didn't? So who
directed her to do this because somebody did somebody did.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
All
right. I understand from Mr. Parsons that he said he would ensure that am I
hearing you that the pensions division or whomever will be available at our next
Management Commission meeting?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It's my understanding I
mean if there are questions it should be yeah, by all means. I'm the vessel
through which this report travelled. I presented it here, but I'll make sure all
of it's answered.
CLERK:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, absolutely.
The
Clerk just suggested that we arrange a technical briefing for all Members of the
Management Commission on not only well, the MCRC report, Ms. Michael had
raised earlier that she wanted to talk a little bit more about what's in the
report and the work that was done there, and this letter from Morneau Shepell.
So are
Members agreeable, we've got a mover and a seconder, to postpone the vote on 43?
Can we arrange, prior to the next Management Commission meeting, or even during
that Management Commission meeting, to have a technical briefing on not only the
pension aspect of the MCRC but the Morneau Shepell? Are Members agreeable to
that?
MS. MICHAEL:
If I know ahead of time the
answers to some of the questions that we've put I want to know where it came
from. I want to know who ordered it. I want to know that ahead of time.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. All right. Would you
be satisfied with a technical briefing prior to the next Management Commission
meeting?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think that would be
beneficial, but I think this whole process really starts to speak to the
difficulty of the process that's been undertaken by the Liberal caucus.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm okay with the technical
briefing.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis, I'm going to stop
you here. The Management Commission is non-political. As Chair of the Management
Commission, I'm going to ensure that it's non-political. Mr. Parsons said he
would get you the answer to that question.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I agree.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm not going to have a
political debate at the Management Commission.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I agree with you, Mr.
Speaker. I agree with you. And one of the problems is twice on the front page of
this it refers to a caucus, and that's the problem.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm going to shut it down.
We're not having a political debate at the Management Commission.
Mr.
Parsons, I understand you said you'd get that information?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Not a problem.
MR. SPEAKER:
We can't provide the
information here today, but the information will be provided.
Okay.
We have a mover and seconder. Do we have a vote?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
43 is deferred until we have a technical briefing and it will be dealt with at
the next Management Commission meeting.
Mr.
Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
I want to ensure that the
record shows I recused myself from the vote and did not vote.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Recommendation 44:
The Commission accepts recommendation 44 that the severance and pension
recommendations shall not apply to Members of the House of Assembly who are
elected before November 30, 2015.
MS. MICHAEL:
I move deferral of this
discussion until we deal with the issues that have come up in the discussion
around number 43.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible) we have to defer
all the discussion until we have (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MS. MICHAEL:
I need a seconder.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'll second it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
It is
moved and seconded that we defer 44 as well.
Ms.
Keefe has just advised me they'd like to deal with this in the event if
somebody resigns or retires or passes away or whatever, they'd like to have 44
dealt with. Is 44 connected to 43? I mean, can we have a decision on how to move
forward for new Members?
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh right, I'm sorry. I
jumped too quickly, yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
So I want to go back, before
we vote on that, 44 doesn't affect Members elected November 30, 2015 and beyond.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, that's right.
MR. SPEAKER:
So 44 would be basically
saying that older Members such as you're collecting, but Mr. Davis is not yet,
or other Members, so if we
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, I jumped too quickly;
I got it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. So you retract your
MS. MICHAEL:
I retract my motion for
deferral; I'm ready to make a decision on that one. Sorry.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. So proposed motion 2,
recommendation 44. Do we have a mover?
Moved
and seconded.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just to be clear, we can always change that date to another different date,
sometime in the future.
MR. SPEAKER:
Exactly.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Number 44 no, we can't.
No, that's right. No, we can't. Only on the matters that we're discussing.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, we got quite confused.
MR. SPEAKER:
So 43 will deal with Members
elected November 30, 2015.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
MR. SPEAKER:
Right?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Once we deal with 43, we'll
know what
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes. We agree on that much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Under
Tab 7: the appointment of Officers of the House in an acting capacity. This
basically deals with the Table Clerks, the Law Clerk and so on. If one of these
individuals were to retire
CLERK:
Get sick.
MR. SPEAKER:
get sick, or whatever the
case may be. The Management Commission, there's no mechanism in place to appoint
a temporary Clerk or Law Clerk, for example, until the House sits again. So if
it happens during summer months, we do without a Law Clerk until the House sits
again and appoint the Law Clerk.
So the
proposed motion on this is: Pursuant to subsection 20(1) of the
House Of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, the Commission approves the proposed
amendment to the act to include provisions for the appointment of House Officers
in an acting capacity, subject to final wording by the Office of Legislative
Counsel.
Do we
have any comments or questions?
People
have the Briefing Note and should have read it.
Mr.
Browne?
Moved.
Seconded?
Seconded.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Tab 8:
MCRC recommendations. On October 28, the 2016 MCRC presented its report on the
review of Members' salaries, pension, severance allowances. The report contained
59 recommendations which are required to be brought to the Management Commission
for review and decision.
As
outlined in section 16(5) and 16(6) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act the Commission shall accept or modify
recommendations. If the Commission wishes to modify a recommendation, it does
not have the authority to exceed the maximum amounts recommended by the MCRC.
MCRC
recommendations have been considered by the Commission at meetings held at
November 23 and November 30 of 2016, December 7 of 2016, February 27, 2017.
Today, we will be considering the remaining recommendations of the MCRC, which
are under Tab 8.
Recommendation 22, which is travel to the capital region at the request of the
House of Assembly, is Briefing Note 2017-014. The MCRC made the following
recommendation regarding travel to the capital region, that travel expenses
incurred by an MHA at the request of the House of Assembly for purposes other
than the usual duties of an MHA, shall be paid by the House of Assembly and
shall not count as one of the 20 House-not-in-Session trips allocated to the
Member.
Currently, expenses are reimbursed for Members travelling to the capital region
for the purposes outlined above, but they are required to use one of their 20
House-not-in-Session trips.
The
MCRC 2016 reviewed this matter and it's recommending that travel by MHAs at the
request of the House of Assembly for purposes other than their usual duties be
paid by the House of Assembly and not count as one of the HNIS trips.
Do we
have any questions or comments before we get to the proposed motion?
Okay.
So the proposed motion is: The Commission accepts recommendation 22 that travel
expenses incurred by an MHA at the request of the House of Assembly for the
purposes other than the usual duties of an MHA, shall be paid by the House of
Assembly and shall not count as one of the 20 House-not-in-Session trips
allocated to the Member.
Moved
by Mr. Browne; seconded
MS. MICHAEL:
I have a question of
clarification because Mr. Davis just asked me a question. I'll use a practical
example of something that had happened. So when we had the All-Party Committee
on Northern Shrimp and we were all on that at the request of the House of
Assembly, but when we travelled to Ottawa, I think the department had to pay our
travel, didn't it? Would this say that that would change?
MR. SPEAKER:
No, this is trips to the
capital region.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, I'm sorry, just to
capital region?
CLERK:
If I might explain. This
would mainly apply following a general election, or a by-election, where we
deliver training to new Members. Right now, in order to come in to do that, the
only way they can do it is with the House-not-in-Session trip, which is really
not fair.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Okay.
CLERK:
So this is something that would allow us to do the training without the Member
having to expend one of their trips.
MS. MICHAEL:
So it's very particular. And
it's to the capital region. I just saw that now. I thought it was up above.
Sorry about that.
CLERK:
It doesn't apply to
committee work.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right. Okay.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do we have a seconder then?
MS. MICHAEL:
I'll second.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Is that the only example?
I'm just trying to think of examples, where maybe people that might be watching
might be saying what would be the purpose of it.
CLERK:
That is about the only
example, if there's training. It happens right after the general election; we
had to coordinate with the caucuses to see when Members were coming in, and
actually we tied it into the swearing-in. And especially where the election
happened in November, the swearing-in was late December. It was kind of tight to
fit everything in. But if we had the flexibility that we could bring the Members
in independently of that, it would be better for everyone. Everything else
MR. SPEAKER:
For example if there's a
by-election and a Member gets elected, they can't come in unless they use one of
their 20 House-not-in-Session trips to get the proper training and so on. So
that's
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sworn-in and so on. Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
It's unfair to the Member
because they've got to use one of their personal trips as opposed to coming in
for training for the purposes of the House of Assembly.
MR. P. DAVIS:
When you say personal trips,
you mean a trip for attending the sitting of the House, yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I understand.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendation 23.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I will jump in on that one
because (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
On 23?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, absolutely.
MR. A. PARSONS:
This one's about the rental
car, right? Where it says Members who use the rental car in their districts must
utilize I&E and this is the second one, and again, in the grand scheme of
things it's small. If parking fees are incurred in relation to the primary
vehicle while using a rental in the district, the parking fee is not an eligible
expense for reimbursement.
So just
to toss out a specific example. I drive from Port aux Basques to St. John's with
my personal vehicle. I've got to fly home for the weekend so I drive to the
airport, park my car, fly back to Deer Lake, get a rental car, and then use that
for that weekend, fly back to St. John's. I've got to pay parking at St. John's
International Airport that parking fee is not covered? So I need to understand
the logic behind that.
MR. SPEAKER:
It's one of the
recommendations of the MCRC report, unfortunately.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, so I did read it
right then?.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, you did. So in that
particular case you park your car at the Confederation Building, you get a cab
to the airport, they'll cover your cab fee, you fly home and rent a car.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay. Anyways, I'm ready to
vote; I just wanted to make sure I understood that. It seems
MR. SPEAKER:
I mean, unfortunately that
was raised by several Members from all caucuses. The MCRC doesn't always fully
understand the life of an MHA. This may be one of those cases; but
unfortunately, it is a recommendation. Whether we like it or not, it's a
recommendation. We can make it more stringent; we have that ability, under the
rules, to make it more stringent, but we can't make it less stringent.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I have no problem; I'll move
it now that I understand it.
MR. BROWNE:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved and seconded.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendation 25: Travel to the capital region for the purpose of vacating
office. So, essentially here, the Member will be granted one day to vacate his
or her office. The Member will be permitted to be reimbursed for travel and
accommodation expenses for the day before and the day after attending at their
office, and be permitted meal allowance for that period of time.
The
proposed recommendation is: The Commission accepts Recommendation 25 that a
Member be granted one day to vacate his/her office. The Member will be permitted
to be reimbursed for travel and accommodation expenses for the day before and
the day after attending at their office, and be permitted the meal allowance for
that period of time.
Any
questions or comments?
Moved
and seconded.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendations 49 through 55; the 2016 MCRC made seven recommendations
regarding the operations of the House of Assembly Management Commission. If the
Commission accepts the recommendations, seven separate motions will be required.
I'm
guessing that all Members read the recommendations?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll just get straight to
the point and read the proposed motion, if that's okay.
So the
proposed motion 1: The Commission adopts recommendation 49 and directs that the
Management Commission, officers of the House and staff of the House of Assembly
administration shall be responsible and accountable to ensure that all advice,
deliberations, decisions and recommendations of the Management Commission
(whether such advice deliberations, decisions and recommendations are the result
of informal or formal meetings of the members of the Commission) are properly
documented.
Any
questions or comments?
A
mover?
Moved;
seconded by Lorraine Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
2: The Commission adopts recommendation 50 that it is an offence to fail to so
document, or to destroy documentation recording decisions and recommendations or
the advice and deliberations leading up to those decisions and recommendations.
Any
questions or comments?
Do we
have a mover?
MR. P. DAVIS:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Mr. Davis; seconded
by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
3: The Commission adopts recommendation 51 that the role of the House of
Assembly Management Commission Audit Committee be expanded to specifically
review compliance by the Speaker and each member of the Management Commission
regarding the requirement to review and make decisions on all MCRC
recommendations.
Any
questions or comments?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I was just going to suggest,
Mr. Speaker, for the sake of time, that I think we've all taken the time to
review these and I'm wondering if we can do 49 through 55 or whatever that's
the number I'm looking at here as a block, unless there are questions
specifically to be asked. I've reviewed all mine.
MR. SPEAKER:
Have all Members reviewed
their
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, we have, but
you're still going to run through all the motions individually.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, and for the sake of
viewers, so that they know what we're doing.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think so, yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Absolutely, that's exactly
my point.
MR. SPEAKER:
So do we have a mover and/or
a seconder for motion 3?
MS. MICHAEL:
Moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Ms. Michael;
seconded by does anybody want to second?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I will second it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded by Mr. Davis.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
next motion is: The Commission adopts recommendation 52 and directs that the
Speaker shall: (a) not set Management Commission meetings that conflict with
Cabinet meetings; (b) no later than September 15 of each year, set a fixed
schedule of a minimum of three (3) Management Commission meetings for the Fall,
which all members shall make a priority in attending; (c) no later than January
15 each year, set a fixed schedule of a minimum of three (3) Management
Commission meetings for the Spring, which all members shall make a priority in
attending.
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
MR. P. DAVIS:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Mr. Davis; seconded
by Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
next motion: The Commission adopts recommendation 53 and directs that no member
shall be permitted to be absent from any Management Commission meeting without
good cause and prior approval of the Speaker.
Do we
have a mover and a seconder?
Moved;
seconded by Mr. Browne.
All
those in favour, 'aye.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it's
not always a circumstance where someone can seek prior approval, depending on
their circumstances. That's the only comment I'd make on it where you're
requiring prior approval of the Speaker. There may be emergent circumstances in
an MHA's life that would, at the last minute, prevent them from being able to
attend the meeting.
I know
this is a recommendation from MCRC. I make the point and I can think of many
circumstances where that could happen, and I'm sure the Speaker would use
discretion.
MR. SPEAKER:
To the best degree possible.
Moved
by Ms. Parsons; seconded by Mr. Browne.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
3: The Commission adopts recommendation 54 and directs that subsection 18(8) of
the Act be amended to permit that a quorum shall consist of a simple majority of
members of the Commission, without reference to government or opposition
members, but a quorum must include the Speaker.
Any
questions or comments?
MR. P. DAVIS:
The only comment, Mr.
Speaker, is I understand sometimes there are challenges in setting Management
Commission meetings and that's the nature sometimes of what happens. But I would
expect that what happens right now is Management Commission and the Clerk and
the Clerk's Office sometimes go to some length to make sure that the meeting can
accommodate as many Members as possible, and I certainly appreciate it. I'm sure
all Members appreciate it and I'm sure that tradition will continue, even though
we're moving to a simple majority of the Members.
I don't
think it's an issue; I just say that I know the intention all along was to get
as many Members as possible to attend, and I'm sure that will continue.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments or
questions?
Do we
have a mover?
Moved
by Ms. Michael; seconded by Mr. Davis.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
next proposed motion is: The Commission adopts recommendation 55 that the
Management Commission review its function and the breadth of its authority.
Any
questions or comments?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I can't remember if Ms.
Burke spoke to this, but I just find it curious that there's no timeline or
anything. It's very, very open-ended. It doesn't say within a session, or within
a year. I'm not saying we don't do it, but I just find it strange that it's so
open-ended.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, we can put a timeline on it, if you wish. Within 12 months, if you wish.
MS. MICHAEL:
I mean, it just seems like
there should be something else there, besides I don't know if anybody else
feels the same way. Should it be in between sessions or should it be within I
don't know.
MR. SPEAKER:
If you want to put a
timeline, 12 months gives a fair bit of flexibility, understanding that we're
heading into I mean, we're in the spring session and then we're followed by
summer. I think six months would be very restrictive, because
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, too restrictive. And the
thing is, if we are to do a review I think what we'd be setting would only be
the beginning, but maybe we should just say within the session, like in between
MCRC there should be review done
MR. SPEAKER:
During the General Assembly?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
If you wanted to make that
amendment
MS. MICHAEL:
I will make that motion,
yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Can you note that to
Marie that the same motion to be completed within this General Assembly?
Okay.
Moved by Ms. Michael; seconded by do we have a seconder?
Mr.
Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
next motion is: The Commission accepts recommendation 56 that if the intention
is to have healthy and robust public input and participation, we recommend that
future MCRCs be given options in a timelier manner as to the preparation and
publication of notices, active engagement with the media, the creation of
webpages and the use of social media.
Any
questions or comments?
MS. MICHAEL:
Where is that?
MR. SPEAKER:
That's recommendation 56.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, right, if I just turned
the page. No, I already saw that, yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Any questions or
comments?
Do we
have a mover?
MR. P. DAVIS:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved.
Seconded?
Mr.
Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
next motion: The Commission accepts recommendation 57 that some care should be
taken in the timing of the official commencement of the MCRC so that public
engagement can occur when most members of the public are available to attend
public meetings (e.g. during non-summer months, hearings to be held during
evening hours, etc.).
Any
questions or comments?
Moved
by Ms. Michael; seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
I'm not
sure, maybe the next MCRC will get quite a shock when they get the same number
of people showing up to the meetings if it's during non-summer months.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think it's a very good
point to make.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah.
The
next motion; the Commission accepts recommendation 58 that some care should be
taken in the timing of the official commencement of the MCRC so that
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's duplicated.
MR. SPEAKER:
Pardon me? Okay. All right.
Yeah,
I'm not sure; we may have a typo here because we have the same motion for 57 and
58. We'll defer 58 until the next meeting I think, because there's a typo and
it's the same motion.
CLERK:
We can read back from 56 to
59, Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, I think we'll defer.
I'd rather defer 58 and have Members have it in front of them as opposed to
reading it out.
CLERK:
Yeah, it's in the front part
of the note. It's just the back part of the note didn't (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. We're going to defer
58, though.
CLERK:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
So 57 is accepted; 59: The
Commission accepts recommendation 59 that to aide future MCRCs with their work,
they should be informed more promptly of the resources available to them,
including the availability of the House of Assembly staff to provide
consultation.
Any
questions or comments?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
MS. MICHAEL:
You need the motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sorry, yes.
Moved
by Ms. Michael; seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against.
Carried.
The
next motion is: The Commission accepts recommendation 45 that the heading of
Section 16 of the Act be amended as follows: 'Inquiry re: MHA Compensation' or
such similar wording as to capture the entirety of the remuneration that forms
part of the Inquiry.
Any
questions or comments?
Do we
have a mover?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against.
Carried.
The
next motion: The Commission accepts recommendation 46 that paragraph 16(5)(a)
of the Act be amended to delete the reference to 'non-taxable allowances' and to
properly reference severance and pension.
Any
questions or comments?
Do we
have a mover?
Moved
by Mr. Browne; seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
next motion: The Commission accepts recommendation 47 that subsection 16(6) of
the Act be amended to delete the reference to 'non-taxable allowances' and to
properly reference severance and pension.
MS. MICHAEL:
But it's a different
section, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Ms. Michael;
seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
next motion: The Commission modifies recommendation 48 that Section 17 of the
Act be amended to properly reference severance, but that it not include a
reference to pensions as they are not paid out of the consolidated revenue
fund.
Any
questions or comments?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Mr. Browne.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
final recommendation: The Commission approves proposed amendments to subsection
16(1) and (2) of the Act to remove references to the 46th and 47th General
Assemblies as they are no longer necessary.
MS. MICHAEL:
Moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Ms. Michael;
seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I know we deferred 58, I
believe it was
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, but I don't have any
difficulty if you we want to pass that today.
MR. SPEAKER:
If all Members do. I just
wanted to make sure that Members
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's the right motion on the
front page of the note; it's the wrong motion in the back page of the note.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, that's right.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The front page I've got
the MCRC with me, and 58 as on the front page of the briefing note is the same
as it is contained in the report. That's the one I had gone by, and I'm okay
with that if you wanted to I can move passage of recommendation 58 if you so
desire.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Mr.
Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
So that's the one with the
intention is to have healthy and robust public input and participation?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. BROWNE:
Yes, I would assume it is.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. If the intention is to
have healthy and robust public input and participation
.
CLERK:
Yes, it's these four, 56
you got it there.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. BROWNE:
I second that.
MR. SPEAKER:
So I think 58 may have been
right; 57 was wrong, was it?
MS. MICHAEL:
So 58 of the note is
different than what's over here as 58, isn't it? So the 58 on page 1 is the
correct recommendation; is that right, Ms. Barnes?
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. So I think when read
57 and 58 were the same, so we passed 57 which should have been 58. Because the
cut-and-paste 57 was the same as 58. So I'm going to do these two again. So 57
MS. MICHAEL:
If we look at page 1 of the
Briefing Note, would that make it clear for us?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
So
Marie, did you want to read out 57 again, if you would?
MS. KEEFE:
57?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MS. KEEFE:
While we recognize
that the requirement for appointing a Members' Compensation Review Committee is
legislated, some care should be taken in the timing of the official commencement
of the MCRC so that public engagement can occur when most members of the public
are available to attend public meetings (e.g. during non-summer months, hearings
to be held during evening hours, etc.).
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, so we voted on that.
MS. MICHAEL:
That is 57 and we passed that.
MR. SPEAKER: We
passed that. I just want it for clarification, because on the back of the
Briefing Note, 57 and 58 were the same. So
MR. P. DAVIS:
Different from 57 in the book.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, exactly.
So Marie, for greater clarification, can you read 58?
MS. KEEFE:
Sure.
If the intention is to have healthy and robust public
input and participation, we recommend that future MCRCs be given options in a
timelier manner as to the preparation and publication of notices, active
engagement with the media, the creation of webpages and the use of social
media.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved? Seconded by Mr. Browne and Mr. Parsons.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Can you read 59 because I believe that was what was in the
back of the note, is 59, Marie, if I'm not mistaken.
MS. KEEFE:
Recommendation 59: To aide future MCRCs with their work, they should be
informed more promptly of the resources available to them, including the
availability of the House of Assembly staff to provide consultation.
MR. SPEAKER: We
voted on that.
Can you read 56 again, please?
MS. KEEFE:
Recommendation 56: Any relevant materials relating to the work of future MCRCs
(such as the Green Report, past reports of MCRCs, the Members' Administration
Guide, Provincial and National reports dealing with similar issues, etc.) be
delivered to the members of future MCRCs as soon as they are appointed, to allow
them time to read and prepare for the work before them.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
And
that was done as well. So I think we're as clear as mud.
MS. MICHAEL:
We got it now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Do we have any other
comments, questions, any concerns by Members before we call for a motion to
adjourn?
Do we
have a motion to adjourn?
Mr.
Parsons; seconded by Mr. Browne.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Meeting
is adjourned.
On
motion, meeting adjourned.