May 17,
2017
The
Management Commission met at 5:15 p.m. in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
I'd like to
welcome everybody including those at home that are viewing and anybody who may
be in the media gallery. This is a meeting of the Management Commission.
We just
had an in-camera meeting. There were no decisions made at that particular
meeting, so we will report on that meeting once we have further discussions and
have something to report.
For the
televised meeting, I'm going to ask Members to introduce themselves. I'll start
with Mark Browne at the far left here.
MR. BROWNE:
I think you just did it, Mr.
Speaker.
Mark
Browne, Placentia West – Bellevue.
MS. COADY:
Good evening.
Siobhan
Coady, St. John's West.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, Burgeo – La
Poile.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Lisa Dempster, Deputy
Speaker.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, St. John's
East – Quidi Vidi.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, Ferryland
District.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Paul Davis, Topsail –
Paradise.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have staff here as well,
to my right.
CLERK (Barnes):
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MS. KEEFE:
Marie Keefe, Clerk's office.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm Tom Osborne, Chair of
the Management Commission.
We have
a couple of items here. Under Tab 2 in your briefing books, this item here
requires approval. There's one other item as well that doesn't require approval.
The
minutes of the last meeting, I believe – these are minutes of the March 15
meeting. I will ask if Members have reviewed them. If so, could we have a mover
and a seconder?
MR. BROWNE:
Moved.
MS. MICHAEL:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Mark Browne;
seconded by Lorraine Michael.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Approved.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
Item 2 is a report on
rulings on allowance use. This is for reporting purposes only. There is no
decision required.
The
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act gives authority for the Speaker to make
rulings when expenditures of Members have been rejected for payment provided the
ruling is distributed to and receives concurrence of the Management Commission.
The
report provides the details with respect to the rulings for the period ended May
12, 2017. The reported expenditure was rejected for payment because it was not
submitted within 60 days of being made; however, it is permitted and complies
with all other provisions of the Members'
Resources and Allowances Rules.
Any
questions or comments before we move forward?
Under
Tab 3 –
MS. COADY:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MS. COADY:
I'm just wondering, I think
the substance of the discussion would be around Tab 3. I'm wondering if we can
move to Tabs 4, 5 and 6, if that would be satisfactory.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, perfect.
MS. COADY:
Only because I think the
substance of the discussion would be on Tab 3, if that's okay with everyone?
MR. SPEAKER:
Absolutely.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
There seems to be
concurrence with that so we will move to Tab 4 and come back to Tab 3.
Tab 4
is clarification of rules with respect to meals in restaurants. There is a
decision required here.
At the
meeting of December 7, 2016, the Management Commission accepted Recommendation
29 of the MCRC report regarding the recovery of meal expenses from restaurants,
pubs, delicatessens and the like under the constituency allowance.
Recently, a Member inquired as to whether that particular Member could host a
luncheon for veterans which was to be held at a restaurant premises in the
Member's district. While this would have been an allowable expense previously,
it cannot be claimed given the current interpretation of the rules regarding
meals in restaurants under constituency allowance.
The
Clerk consulted with the Chair of the MCRC who confirmed that the original
intent of Recommendation 29 was to prohibit MHAs from taking a constituent or
small number of constituents for a meal. However, to host an event with a larger
number of constituents where there is a purpose to the event is acceptable as a
means to disseminate information to a larger number of constituents.
Given
the confusion and the subsequent clarification as to the original intent of the
MCRC recommendation by the Chair, it is suggested the Commission approve the
amendment to section 46 of the rules. The details of the proposed amendment are
outlined in Briefing Note 2017-029. In addition to the rule amendment, it was
suggested that the Commission issue a directive providing clarification to this
rule, details of which are also outlined in the briefing note.
Are
there any comments or questions prior to the proposed recommendation?
Mr.
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just
for clarification purposes, on the first page you read out the consultation with
the Chair, 2016 MCRC: “However, to host an event with a large number of
constituents where there is a purpose to the event, is acceptable as a means to
disseminate information to a large number of constituents.”
Just
some clarity, in an event with constituents where you're disseminating
information on a topic in the district or you're just meeting, it's not
sufficient, or you could have discussion. Could we get some more detail on that,
please?
CLERK:
My understanding from what was in the report, and then a subsequent consultation
with the Chair, was that the intent of the recommendation was to eliminate the
ability to claim expenses when a Member takes a constituent or a number of
constituents out and conducts a meeting with them. The thought being that the
Members had offices in which to conduct meetings with the constituents. That was
their interpretation.
It was
never intended to capture something like a recognition event such as the one
outlined, or an appreciation event, that sort of thing, where one of the venues
might be a restaurant. As pointed out in the note, if such an event was going to
be held in a Legion or a community hall or something, it is an eligible expense.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
CLERK:
It goes back to the whole foundation that the MCRC argues in their report in
that you need to look to the purpose; however, the language is so precise that
the staff can't put any interpretation to it.
As I
said, when the inquiry was made to our staff, we looked at it and said we don't
think this is what was intended. We consulted and we said the only way to
clarify this is to bring it to the Commission.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any others?
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Again, just for
clarification or to point out where maybe we need something else. To host an
event with a large number of constituents where there is a purpose for the
event, I guess that leaves it wide open for interpretation as well, like what is
the type of purpose.
I have
to say – and open my eyes – well, if this is acceptable, fine, but it would
never have come to me that hosting this kind of event that's been used as the
example here would have come to me as something I could put money into from my
constituency allowance.
I'm
holding a district public forum on the 24th and it's on long-term care. We're
going to have a panel of experts and explore possibilities with people. It has
been advertised all over the district and will continue to be right up until the
day. That, to me, is an event with a purpose.
Do we
just leave purpose wide open? Because I'll be honest, we do have some problems
with us putting in claiming for something and the interpretation maybe from CMS
is: No, no, that doesn't apply. This, to me, leaves it wide open that way.
CLERK:
That's why there's a further
recommendation there that we issue a directive that when Members claim such
expenditures the Members would identify the event, the purpose of it and the
number attending. As I said, this was intended to eliminate the ability to claim
for one-on-one or small meetings, having the meeting with constituents. If you
get in and you start defining purpose then that becomes limiting and then our
staff are left with trying to interpret it.
The
Members are the best ones to interpret whether this is a meeting in that respect
or if it is an event such as a recognition event or whatever and they put that
in on the claim. Ultimately, it's the Member's responsibility to identify the
purpose of it and it will be interpreted based on that.
If the
Member says it's an event, it's an event. If the Member says it's a meeting,
it's a meeting.
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, I think the directive
is essential. I don't think we can just make this change without directing that
we need the directive.
CLERK:
And that's why we've
suggested it because there is just absolutely no way you can word that language
in that regulation to be –
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
CLERK:
If it's that prescriptive,
it's going to lead to all kinds of problems with interpretation.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
A
similar comment to Ms. Michael's and I won't restate everything that she has
said. I have a similar kind of comment on understanding what would be an
acceptable purpose of an event versus what is not. In the example given, I don't
clearly understand what the purpose of the event was, unless it was just to
recognize them or that type of thing which I would fully support.
Maybe
for further clarification there's a proposed amendment and maybe you can explain
to me the difference in what currently exists versus the proposed amendment? I
see meal expenses from restaurants changed to meal expenses in restaurants as
not being reimbursed.
Maybe
you can explain that because it reads to me that you can take takeout and go
down the road and have your event, but you can't actually have it at a
restaurant if there might be a private room in the back of a restaurant or
something like that.
CLERK:
The only wording changes:
that the phrase for meetings has been inserted.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sorry?
CLERK:
The wording that's there now
and the proposed wording, it just clarifies that the expense would not be
eligible to be claimed if it was for a meeting with constituents, their family
members and other guests, which was the intent of the MCRC recommendation.
MR. SPEAKER:
I guess there has to be a
certain level of integrity on behalf of the Members as well. I think since Green
that level of integrity has been there because of the issues highlighted under
Green.
The
risk is the further you get away from Green, the fewer people remember why Green
was put in place and the rules were put in place. But up to this point, I think
the integrity of Members of the Legislature has been there. I don't think that
integrity has been swayed or compromised by Members of the Legislature.
The
Chair of the MCRC recognizes if you're having a meeting – Members had some
concerns because if you're having a meeting, a legitimate meeting, and you can't
have it in a delicatessen or a restaurant, but you can order food from a
delicatessen and rent a room somewhere, it's kind of silly.
If it's
a bona fide legitimate meeting – the intent of the MCRC recommendation was to
prevent a particular Member from inviting a constituent to a meal and discussing
a concern that the constituent might have over a meal. But if it's a bona fide
meeting and it can be shown to be a bona fide meeting, well, then the confusion
and the difficulty in saying we'll order some food from a restaurant but rent a
room so we can have a meeting.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now you can rent a private
room in a restaurant, hold your meeting and it should be legitimate.
Again,
I mean it's important that Members carry out the integrity that was pointed out
under the Green recommendations in making sure that these are legitimate.
Any
further questions or comments?
Making
a motion? Okay.
The
proposed motion: “Pursuant to Section 64 of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, the Commission approves the proposed
amendment to paragraph 46(4)” and I believe that's (a) of the
Members' Resources and Allowances –
CLERK:
It's (g).
MR. SPEAKER:
It's (g), is it? Okay.
“… of
the Members' Resources and Allowances Rules, subject to final wording by the
Office of the Legislative Counsel.
“The
Commission further directs that a clarification of the rules be issued pursuant
to its authority under subparagraph 20(6)(b)(i) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, stating that should a Member claim meal
expenditures in a restaurant under Section 46 for the purpose of an event, the
name, purpose and number of attendees at the event must be identified with the
supporting documentation for the expenditure.”
Do we
have a motion to approve? Mr. Browne.
Do we
have a seconder? Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
In Tab
5 there's a decision required; the legislative amendments. At a meeting held on
March 15, 2017, the House of Assembly Management Commission approved a number of
recommendations of the 2016 MCRC review which require amendments to the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act and the
Members' Resources and Allowances Rules,
the rules.
The
amendments to the rules will be tabled by the Speaker in the House of Assembly
and brought to the next meeting of the Commission for final approval. The
Government House Leader will be asked to bring the proposed amendments for the
act forward to Cabinet for approval subject to final drafting by the Office of
the Legislative Counsel and presentation to the House of Assembly as a bill.
At its
meeting on March 15, 2017, the Commission accepted Recommendation 22 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 HNIS trips allocated to the Member.
As the
details for each request may vary, it is recommended a clause be inserted
permitting the Clerk of the House of Assembly to identify details, such as the
number of nights and the daily amounts at the time of the request. The Law Clerk
has drafted the proposed wording for the required amendments, which require
approval of the Commission.
The
attachment to Briefing Note 2017-30 contains the proposed wording for the
various amendments. I trust Members have read those. Are there any questions or
comments?
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
amendments, subject to final wording by the Office of the Legislative Counsel.”
Do we
have a mover and/or seconder?
Moved
by Lorraine Michael; seconded by Mr. Browne.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Approved.
In Tab
6 there is a decision required. It's an amendment to transfer of funds. The
House of Assembly Transfer of Funds
Policy was approved by the Management Commission in April 2008 as CM
2008-77. Amendments to the policy were approved in October 2014, CM 2014-31.
Under
section 3.2, the first bullet currently reads: “authorize transfers of funds
from an Operating Account in an Activity and subsequently authorize a transfer
of funds to any Operating Account within the same Activity.”
The
House of Assembly is recommending an amendment to the first bullet in section
3.2 as follows: “authorize transfers of funds from/to a Main Object in an
Activity and subsequently authorize a transfer of funds to/from any Main Object
within the same Activity.”
The
draft policy including the proposed revision for section 3.2 is attached as
Briefing Note 2017-31.
Do we
have any questions or comments?
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Just to be absolutely clear,
the only reason this is a draft is because we're putting the amendment in.
Everything else is as it was, right?
MR. SPEAKER:
Correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
What confused me was then
when I looked at the options in our briefing notes, it said approve the proposed
amendments. Then I said but I think I there's only one amendment and that's the
3.2.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, that's correct.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, good enough.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments, any
other questions?
The
proposed motion, the Commission approves the proposed amendments to the
House of Assembly Transfer of Funds
Policy.
Do I
have a moved and/or seconder?
MS. MICHAEL:
Could we change amendments
to amendment?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, absolutely.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Subject to the change of
amendments to amendment, moved by Mr. Browne; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Approved.
Back to
item 3. Item 3 is the proposals respecting MHA pensions for consideration by the
Commission. The MCRC recommendations respecting MHA pensions were discussed at
several meetings that were held in December, February, March and another pension
option was tabled at the March 15 meeting.
On May
10, 2017, the Commission was provided a technical briefing by officials from the
Department of Finance on the two pension options which are before the Management
Commission for consideration and decision. Option 1, the defined benefit pension
plan recommendation made by the 2016 MCRC; Option 2 is the defined contribution
plan tabled at the March 15, 2017 meeting.
Details
are provided in Briefing Note 2017-028 under Tab 3. A decision of the Commission
is now required so that the necessary amendments to the Members of the House of
Assembly Act can be drafted by the Office of the Legislative Counsel and
presented to the House of Assembly as a bill.
I'll
open the floor for discussion, questions, comments.
Mr.
Browne, followed by Ms. Coady.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, of course
whenever this subject has arisen at past Management Commissions I have recused
myself as I'm in a conflict of interest. So to note on the record, I believe
it's very important within the conflict to say so, to note it and to recuse
yourself. I am so recusing myself again.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I think
the law clerk – I'm guessing that Ms. Coady is –
MS. COADY:
Going to do exactly the same
thing, Mr. Speaker. On the advice of the law clerk, as I am in conflict of
interest, I will recuse myself from this discussion.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
I
believe the law clerk at a previous meeting – this is a televised meeting. I
don't think it's required that you leave the room as long as you recuse yourself
from the discussion and votes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
They just wanted to.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further comments, any
further questions?
Are we
ready for the vote?
AN HON. MEMBER:
What are we voting on?
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
The
proposed motions: there are two possible proposed motions which may be put
forward on this issue open to changes, obviously.
The
Commission accepts the recommendation 43 that the Defined Benefit Plan as
outlined in Appendix H of the Morneau Shepell Report, otherwise known as Option
2, shall apply to Members of the House of Assembly who were first elected on or
after November 30, 2015.
The
second possible proposed motion is that the Commission adopts a proposal tabled
at the March 15 meeting to change the MHA pension plan to a defined contribution
pension plan for Members elected on or after November 30, 2015.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't know if I cut in.
Mr. Davis, I think, was ready to speak.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Sorry.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I was going to move that the
Management Commission accept Recommendation 43 as just read by you. Then I
thought we could then debate that motion would be the right –
MR. SPEAKER:
Did you want to make a
comment or –?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm just going to make one
quick comment before we move to a vote because I don't know how much debate
there will be.
I would
just note that in the Green report, and I just want to put this on the record.
The Green report recommendation 78 states: (1) “The House of Assembly Management
Commission assisted by the Department of Finance should proceed to develop a
proposed new pension structure for MHAs (a) eliminating the existing defined
benefit plan and implementing a defined contribution RRSP type of arrangement
that takes account of cost and level of benefits relative to other public
service plans.”
I just
wanted to put that on the –
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. First of all, I missed
where that came from. Can you –?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's the Green report,
recommendation 78. Again, I'm just putting that out there as just a comment
prior to if we're going to put these options forward and have a –
MR. SPEAKER:
Did Members hear that or –?
Okay.
Any discussion on –?
MS. MICHAEL:
I seconded it; the light is
on now so I'll second it again.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Any further
discussion?
We've
got a motion, it's seconded. A motion put forward by Mr. Davis to accept
recommendation 43 of the MCRC, I believe?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, that's correct, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, seconded by –
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Pardon?
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's the only commentary
I'll make is that we've had considerable discussion on this in the past and
Justice Green is very clear in that the Members of the House of Assembly should
leave it to an independent body, being the MCRC, to make decisions on
compensation and benefits and the MCRC has reviewed the pensions and made
recommendation 43 which I'm recommending that we accept.
MR. SPEAKER:
Did you have a further
comment Mr. Parsons?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I made my comment and I'll
stick to that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'll make one comment. I was
actually thinking about making a similar comment to Mr. Davis's so I will say
the same thing that though we have heard what Chief Justice Green put in his
report, he did ultimately leave everything in the hands of the MCRC, the
independent body who did a full analysis in their report and made a
recommendation. I've always said we should follow the MCRC recommendations and I
continue to do that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Prior
to the vote – I know it's recommendation 78, I think?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Can you table that? Did
Members want a copy of that or no?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. It's available online
as well.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. Can I get my copy back
after.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Any other comments
prior to the vote?
Okay.
So the motion is put forward by Mr. Davis for recommendation 43 of the MCRC,
seconded by Ms. Michael.
All
those in favour of the recommendation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
MR. A. PARSONS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion carried.
Okay.
We will make available the document tabled by Mr. Parsons to anybody who should
request it. Other than that, are there any other issues, comments or concerns to
be raised prior to calling for a motion to adjourn?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Over here.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Motion to adjourn by
Mr. Hutchings.
Do we
have a seconder?
Ms.
Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
meeting is adjourned.
On motion, meeting adjourned.