November 6, 2019
House of Assembly Management Commission
No. 75
The
Management Commission met at 5:20 p.m. in the Committee Room.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
First of all, I just
want to welcome everyone here to this meeting of the Management Commission.
We have
a new Member of the Management Commission, Dr. John Haggie is here.
CLERK (Barnes):
A new Deputy Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
A new Deputy Speaker as
well, yes. Derrick is sort of – what is the role? It's not a full Member, it's
an ex officio Member as Deputy Speaker and he attends meetings in case he's
called upon to Chair the meeting in my absence.
Also,
just for the purposes of the people downstairs in the Broadcast Centre, I'm
going to ask everyone to introduce themselves again so we know whose mic to turn
on and things like that.
So, MHA
Petten. We'll start down there.
MR. PETTEN:
Barry Petten, MHA, CBS.
MR. BRAZIL:
David Brazil, Opposition
House Leader.
MS. COFFIN:
Alison Coffin, St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. HAWLEY GEORGE:
Kim Hawley George, Law Clerk.
CLERK:
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MR. SPEAKER:
Scott Reid, Speaker.
MS. RUSSELL:
Bobbi Russell, Policy &
Communications Officer.
MR. LOVELESS:
Elvis Loveless, MHA, Fortune
Bay - Cape La Hune.
Scott,
I believe you were in acting capacity the last meeting, weren't you?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. LOVELESS:
Now you're official Speaker,
so congratulations to you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MS. COADY:
Siobhan Coady, St. John's
West.
MR. BENNETT:
Derrick Bennett, Deputy
Speaker.
MR. HAGGIE:
John Haggie, District of
Gander.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. I also want to remind
Members to say their name each time they speak, again, to assist with the
Broadcast services so they know whose mic to turn on and things like that.
The
first thing we have to do is we have to report a decision from our in camera
meeting held prior to this meeting just a few minutes ago.
As
required by the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act,
I am reporting a decision made at an in camera session held just prior to this
meeting.
At an in camera meeting held today, November 6, 2019, the Commission approved
renewal of the lease for premises occupied by the
Seniors' Rep for a further
term of two years under the same terms and conditions contained in the present
lease dated October 26, 2017. The Commission also approved a pre-commitment of
funds for fiscal years 2020-21 and 2021-22 for that.
The
next item is the approval of the minutes from our meeting on September 25. The
minutes have been distributed. People have had a chance to peruse them, I think,
read them. Any errors or omissions?
MR. BRAZIL:
I move to adopt.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, I have a motion to
this.
MR. LOVELESS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded by the Member for
Fortune - Cape La Hune.
MR. LOVELESS:
Fortune Bay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
Fortune is different, yes.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
They're
passed.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
We don't have to make a
decision on this next item but there is a reporting requirement. The approvals
are done by the Clerk.
Do you
want to …?
CLERK:
I can. This is just an
approval for a lateral filing cabinet outside the standard office allocation.
Quite often, we'll get requests from Members for an additional filing cabinet or
a table or something like that. If they're under a thousand dollars I can
approve them, but we have to report them.
MR. SPEAKER:
That's just a reporting
mechanism.
Next,
we have a budget transfer request. The policy related to House of Assembly
transfer of funds requires the Management Commission's approval to transfer
funds to or from the grants and subsidies to the main object of expenditure.
The
transfer of funds is required for the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer,
grants and subsidies to provide additional funds for this fiscal year for the
candidate and auditor subsidies required under the
Elections Act, 1991.
As
noted in tab 4 of our briefing notes, the transfer is required at this time due
to the timing of the 2019 general election. When budget Estimates were prepared
and approved for 2019-2020, the general election was scheduled to take place in
the fall of 2019. Because it took place earlier, the transfer of funds is
required now to cover the candidate and auditor subsidies in accordance with the
timelines outlined in the act. That's the issue and (inaudible).
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
For
clarity and certainty, just for all of us, this is a transfer only, not a
request for additional funds?
CLERK:
No, no. It's just a timing issue. He would've been looking for funding in next
fiscal year, because the cut-off would've been in March and it wouldn't have
been processed before the end of this fiscal year, if the election had been held
in October or November; but, because it was held in May, the cut-off was in
September.
MS. COADY:
Yeah. Why I'm asking, this is not a request for additional funds, meaning you
were taking it from savings from other areas?
CLERK:
Yeah.
MS. COADY:
I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on that.
MS. RUSSELL:
The savings are actually coming from within that office, under their salaries.
MS. COADY:
I just want clarity on that.
CLERK:
Okay.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
CLERK:
Yes.
MS. RUSSELL:
And just to mention that point there as well on the two-day – the waiting
period.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Yeah,
while it's not identified in the briefing note, the Commission is asking to
waive the two-day wait period for this decision in order to expedite the process
of the transfer. People are waiting for the transfer. If we can approve that, it
will facilitate the process and allow it to happen quicker, yeah.
MS. COADY:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
So moved.
Seconded.
Okay.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Okay,
carried.
The
next item is policy respecting reimbursement of legal fees for Members. So, this
issue, back in November of 2018, the Management Commission directed the
development of a policy for reimbursement of legal fees for Members. In our last
meeting, September 25, we had further discussion. We deferred making a decision,
asked for additional analysis to be done and that has been contained in our
briefing material that we received.
Today,
I'd like us to have some discussion on the material, the analysis that was done.
I'm going to ask the Clerk now to give us a briefing on that.
CLERK:
Newfoundland and Labrador is
somewhat unique in the country in that we have the legislative provisions for
the Code of Conduct, in that it is a legislative process. So there's a much
higher probability of Member-to-Member complaints in our jurisdiction than in
others.
In most
other jurisdictions, you would see a member of the public bringing an action
against a member, a company bringing an action – similar to what the ministers
experience in the Executive Branch.
The
provisions in policies elsewhere, which are generally case by case, they're
built to suit that circumstance. However, we did go and we did look at the
policy parameters established in other jurisdictions and tried to determine what
implications they would have, given our circumstances, because we have the Code
of Conduct and whistle-blower provisions need to be considered. We have the
general legal matters that might come in terms of actions brought against the
Management Commissions or Members in the course of their duties. Then, of
course, the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy.
In
looking at the various policy parameters that other jurisdictions have used,
essentially they look at whether or not the legal expenses arise out of the
Member conducting their duties as a Member. So if it was a personal nature,
somebody assaulted somebody else, we wouldn't look at that. They wouldn't look
at it. Or if it had to do with the electoral process, that would not be
considered a legitimate expense for reimbursement of a Member.
The
next two, they become almost mutually exclusive in our environment, but the
Member has not initiated proceedings. They only reimburse where the proceedings
were initiated against a Member and the Member is a defendant and, similarly,
the allegations against the Member have not been substantiated at the conclusion
of the matter.
If
somebody brought an action and the Member was found innocent of any allegations,
their Board of Internal Economy or Management Commission would reimburse that
Member. That does not take into account that we have Members bringing complaints
or responding to complaints against other Members.
Essentially, in these situations if you picked 2 or 3, the Management Commission
would be essentially adjudicating one Member against the other. The whole idea
of having the Code of Conduct process, with the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards, is to take all of the Members out of that process until a report
arrives in the House.
The
request for reimbursement is made at the conclusion of the matter. That's
another parameter that's embedded in some policies and that's intended. Once all
avenues have been pursued, then the Management Commission or Board of Internal
Economy would look at the costs involved and determine whether or not any
reimbursement would be made.
Finally
– and this is actually a provision in the federal policy – basically, no matter
what other parameters have been established, they provide an option here for the
Board of Internal Economy to exercise discretion, because there will be matters
that will not fit anything or would be extraordinary in nature. Essentially,
it's case by case again. It comes back to the Board of Internal Economy to
determine if an exception would be granted to the policy and reimburse the legal
fees, in spite of any parameters that have been given.
Generally speaking, as I said, these policies are geared to others bringing
actions against Members. In the cases of the jurisdictions that have provided
for Members bringing complaints against other Members – that would be the Yukon
and the House of Commons – what they have done is set an amount that they will
give both the complainant and the respondent. Both of them have chosen $5,000.
MS. COADY:
Is that a maximum?
CLERK:
That's the maximum but,
again, the House –
MS. COADY:
A yearly maximum or
(inaudible)?
CLERK:
A complaint, it would be by
case.
MR. BRAZIL:
That's only in the case of
Member against Member?
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. BRAZIL:
It wouldn't be an outside
constituent, I'm assuming –
CLERK:
No, not at all.
MR. BRAZIL:
Okay, Member against Member,
$5,000 maximum.
CLERK:
In providing that lump-sum
amount, the policy does provide for extenuating or exceptional circumstances by
having this discretionary provision written into the policy, which is policy
parameter 5 in your table.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
I just
want to delve into this $5,000 per complaint. We've seen, on the floor of the
Legislature, very unusual circumstances where a complaint takes multi
approaches. So, we've had a complaint against one Member, then that Member files
a counter-complaint. Is it $5,000 for the total complaint or $5,000 per
instance?
CLERK:
It would be per instance.
Essentially, there were five reports tabled in the House in 2018. Even though
some of them were the same complainants and same respondents, we would have paid
out 10 times – if we had $5,000, it would've been $50,000; 10 times $5,000.
MS. COADY:
Right, okay.
Thank
you.
CLERK:
Okay.
So,
that's it in a nutshell, because we have to be careful in looking at policies.
You can't codify everything because they're so unique, the circumstances. You
will be left with having to make determinations. However, looking at these
policy parameters and taking into account our statutory provisions and our
circumstances, we essentially divided the circumstances into three categories,
which is in this shaded table.
The
option would be, for a review under the Code of Conduct or the whistle-blower
provisions, you could provide an equitable reimbursement to both the complainant
and the respondent on a pre-established lump sum, and the Management Commission
would have the discretion as to the quantum.
In
doing so, if you so wished, you could take the approach used by the House of
Commons and write in this discretionary provision that if circumstances
warranted, you could come back and look at it in the case of something
extraordinary. We don't know what extraordinary might be.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
I would suggest we're in
pretty extraordinary times as they are. The nature of my question is, we've not
seen the period that we've just come through, and, hopefully, we'll never see it
again, if what we're doing in Privileges and Elections and the interim policy
acceptance, we would be able to mitigate these concerns before they become
full-blown complaints.
I guess
my question to the Clerk is: Is this extraordinary circumstances that we're in;
therefore, the exceptional circumstances, provisions are there, or have you seen
this kind of action in previous times?
CLERK:
Well, we've only ever had –
before the request that came forward last year, the only request was in 2007 and
the Management Commission denied it.
MS. RUSSEL:
That's for legal fees; reimbursement of legal fees.
CLERK:
That was for legal fees,
yes.
Prior
to the five Code of Conduct reports that came forward, previously, we had only
had three since the legislation came in.
That
being said, we've seen the evolution of harassment-free workplace policies in a
number of legislatures or Code of Conduct that address harassment-free work
environments. This is where you see the House of Commons coming out with its new
policy and the Yukon coming out with its new policy, as well as Code of Conduct
provisions for the Senate and other jurisdictions. Saskatchewan have it appended
to their Standing Orders.
So
while they're not identical to us, we're seeing more of a move towards stating
what acceptable behaviour is. We were just ahead of the pack on it.
Where
there was absolutely nothing before, we're seeing a development of an
articulated expectation of behaviour. As I said, the investigation and the
penalty provisions of those are evolving over time as well.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think MHA Petten had
something that he (inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm a
bit confused following this. I was here the last time and I thought I had a good
handle on it, but I want some clarity.
So, the
$5,000 lump sum is for Code of Conduct and whistle-blower violations?
CLERK:
Yes, it would be.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
CLERK:
That would be for each one.
So if you had five complaints made against you, it would be $5,000 for each one.
MR. PETTEN:
Then the question, too – and
I'm trying to write it down. I think I have it but I just want to confirm. So a
case is made, I guess – if someone makes a complaint against one of us in the
course of our duties as MHAs.
CLERK:
That is the next section,
that green section.
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
CLERK:
Okay?
MR. PETTEN:
Another question now, just
for clarity, too. You're saying $5,000 per –
CLERK:
I'm just saying that's what
the Yukon –
MR. PETTEN:
Oh, no, I'm using it for an
example here now.
CLERK:
Yes.
MS. RUSSELL:
Using it to determine what's
–
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah. Based on what just
happened previously, as Minister Coady alluded to, I hope we don't go back
there, how much money was paid out in legal fees for those 10 – did you say it
was 10 complaints? What was covered in this previous round of harassment
allegations?
CLERK:
They were all done on an
individual basis. We do have the amount.
MR. PETTEN:
I think it's worthy of
bringing it up or comparing it.
MS. RUSSELL:
There were four Members that
were reimbursed. There was $14,559 for one Member.
MS. COADY:
Can we just get a
compilation?
MR. PETTEN:
Total?
MS. RUSSELL:
Yeah, I don't know what the
total –
MR. PETTEN:
Okay.
MS. RUSSELL:
I had the individual
amounts. I don't have them all totalled up. There was $26,277 for another
Member, there was $2,219 for another Member and $12,502 for another Member.
CLERK:
Just over $50,000.
MS. RUSSELL:
That was all reimbursed.
CLERK:
Then another Member was
reimbursed through the Department of Justice. We don't know what the cost is for
that.
MR. PETTEN:
That's the point I want to
make, so I'll be on record. Paying $5,000 lump sum, those figures – and I'm not
saying people are overcharged. I want to be on record as saying – I mean
hopefully I never need a lawyer to protect me while I'm carrying out my duties
as an MHA, but I don't want to be exposed. I don't think it's fair for any of
this to be exposed, us or the other 30-odd MHAs that we represent when you're
making these decisions. I just want to be clear about that point.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
I've
given this quite some thinking, and I concur with my colleague's remarks. We
don't want to see any Member of the House who, in the execution of their duties,
have a challenge of being able to pay for legal fees, but there are
extraordinary circumstances too.
I'm
going to hearken back to something you just said that I kind of went, oh my
goodness. If we have one Member that has five complaints per incidence, there's
a bigger problem here that needs to be addressed. That's why I'm kind of, in my
reflections over the last little bit – this case-by-case basis really does
resonate with me. Even though I like clarity and certainty on most everything,
I'm that kind of a person, but I'm looking at exceptional circumstances in most
cases here.
The
point I would say is we are trying to move away from the harassment-complaint
issue, right? We're not talking about a harassment complaint because that's
under a different process. All we're talking about, Code of Conduct and
whistle-blower, and maybe having a top-up of $5,000 per complaint, but couldn't
we be guided by that and look at it on a case-by-case basis? I'm kind of moving
towards that.
If it's
extraordinary circumstances, $5,000 may not be enough, I don't know. If there's
more than one incident against one Member, someone has to pause and reflect that
as well.
CLERK:
And that's essentially what the House of Commons has done. Upfront, they have
decided to give $5,000 to the complainant, $5,000 to the respondent. Thereafter,
Policy Parameter number 5 would kick in, and they would consider. That's
essentially a case-by-case basis where you would exercise discretion. If it was
something really extraordinary, the Management Commission would reserve its
right to say, no, in this case, we wish to not provide or provide additional
support.
MS. COADY:
Could I ask a follow-up to that?
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
I'm wondering if we did set a guidepost, that $5,000 per incident, would we
encourage more of this behaviour or not? I just want to reflect on that.
The
House of Commons, they have 338 members. That's a lot of moving parts, and
they've set a stipend. Should it be a case-by-case basis here? If it's known
that it's $5,000 per instance, are we encouraging more discussion, more
complaints? I just raise that as a thought point. I'm not saying it would; I'm
just wondering if it would.
CLERK:
Can I?
MR. SPEAKER:
You have a response?
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, and then we'll go to –
CLERK:
I think we have to bear in
mind that the Code of Conduct covers a wide range of behaviours. Our experience
in the last year has been with harassment, and, of course, the ideal place to
deal with harassment behaviours is in the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy.
Currently, Members can choose to go and use that policy, but they could still
pursue harassment through the Code of Conduct process.
If the
Privileges and Elections report, their recommendations are revived and decided
upon, then it would take the process for dealing with harassment out of the Code
of Conduct process and put it in a policy process, a Legislature-specific
policy.
Kim, I
don't know –
MS. HAWLEY GEORGE:
Yes, that is correct.
CLERK:
Okay.
MS. RUSSELL:
That was the recommendation
that all harassment complaints be dealt with outside of the Code of Conduct.
MS. COADY:
Which they are under the
interim policy.
MS. HAWLEY GEORGE:
But you can still
proceed under the Code of Conduct, so you get the choice.
MS. COADY:
Oh, under the Code of
Conduct.
MS. RUSSELL:
Yes, right now you still
have two options.
MS. COADY:
Okay, perfect.
Thank
you.
CLERK:
To be quite honest, you
could go under the policy and if you didn't like the outcome, you could still go
back to the Code of Conduct, the way it is right now.
MS. COADY:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, MHA Brazil had some
comments.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My only
concern is – and it's both ways and similar to Minister Coady there, relevant to
are we encouraging people to do it. But on my flipside of that is, at the end of
the day when you interpret the Code of Conduct and you're not really sure if
either your complaint or your defence can move beyond what the policy is and
needing legal advice, that you would have that protection.
I'm in
between. I'm almost with the House of Commons that we have a stipend of $5,000
up to for both and then individual cases, because you have that peace of mind or
that freedom to be able to engage legal advice when you're not quite sure. When
unsure, you need to have the right advice to move forward. Whether the Code of
Conduct policy would cover what you're trying to do or if you think it's another
outside entity that you need to be able to push it.
To me,
there has to be some trustworthiness that we're all going to act as
professionals, and that doesn't necessarily mean that's how it always works.
But, at the end of the day, the primary objective I thought, from our
conversations over the last meeting, was about also ensuring that every Member
in the House of Assembly has protection from both entities, internally and
externally, as part of that.
Personally, I'd be a little bit more comfortable with an amount there for both
the complainant and the defendant, respondent, and then the discretionary use of
clause 5 that if it's an extraordinary circumstance that gets determined that
the Commission has that discussion about what additional resources would be
allocated as part of that.
CLERK:
If I may? In terms of – oh
sorry.
MR. SPEAKER:
We'll go to you first and
then –
CLERK:
Okay.
In
terms of how often we might encounter this, this legislation was passed in 2007.
Up until last year, we only had three complaints under the Code of Conduct and
those three complaints were because of actions taken by an MHA – they were
brought forward by another Member, but it wasn't the interpersonal
relationships, it was because of something the MHA had done that another Member
reported as an infringement of the Code of Conduct.
Last
year, was quite extraordinary in terms of the nature of the complaints that were
brought. Hopefully, it's an anomaly.
MR. SPEAKER:
Dr. Haggie.
MR. HAGGIE:
Yes, thanks.
In
actual fact, the Clerk partly made one of my points, which was even if you
bundle all of these complaints in as eligible, it's not an onerous amount of
workload for this Committee, if you adopted a case-by-case approach.
The
case-by-case approach, casuistry, if you want it, is flexible. It ends up there
anyway and the concern about setting a sum I would have is that would then
become the floor and it would be what everybody went for, rather than up to,
because you didn't actually say anywhere: up to.
So,
really if it's effectively four complaints in 12 years, I don't know the kind of
discussion that you can bring to the table and the Law Clerk, wouldn't just
enable an informed, accurate and contextual decision to be made that would be
fair to all parties. It would be a bit like an adjudication process, but it ends
up there anyway.
If
there is a range of costs that we've heard there, we've overpaid the ones for
$2,000 and we've underpaid the ones for $2,600, unless we do case by case. We
have to do case by case anyway, just accept the inevitable and go for it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments,
discussions, questions?
CLERK:
We've addressed complaints
brought under the Code of Conduct or whistleblower; however, we do have the
other legal matters category and an option would be to consider each request on
a case-by-case basis or to impose some of these policy parameters. For example,
if the Member initiated the action, is that something you would want to
consider?
Then in
terms of the options for reimbursement, most jurisdictions use a case-by-case
basis when they make the determination, they pay the legal fees in there
entirety. The House of Commons uses a maximum hourly rate based on a scale. They
have a scale set based on the years of experience at the bar for the lawyer. If
you have a junior lawyer, it would probably be $50 an hour, whereas if you had a
senior counsel you might be in the $350 range, but they haven't set a cap on the
number of hours.
That's
one of the issues we ran into when trying to analyze the request: What is the
right number of hours? We can't make that determination.
MR. SPEAKER:
Dr. Haggie.
MR. HAGGIE:
The other legal matters are
the Wild West. I mean, you have no box around that at all and you've no idea –
it's like the military intelligence thing, it's an unknown unknown, you really
don't know what you don't know. I would argue that a case-by-case analysis with
advice from the Table staff would be the most sensitive way of doing it.
As to hourly rates or
whether or not you want to set a rate, that may just simply complicate the
matter. If you leave yourselves the discretion, how many hours is enough? Is it
fee for service, like we'll pay you this much to take your gallbladder out, but
if it takes you five hours, you lose on it because we're not going to pay an
hourly rate? That's the environment I came from. I was never in the law world. I
was paid for the end result, not the bit in the middle.
MS. COADY:
(Inaudible.)
MR. HAGGIE:
Yeah, well, you were lucky
some days. Again, I'm just arguing for the discretion of the committee,
basically, the freedom to do it.
CLERK:
I will point out the 2007
request, which was denied by the Management Commission because the Member
initiated the legal advice herself, that's the only one we've had.
MS. RUSSELL:
Yes, prior to what
(inaudible). I think that's important.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have two people, MHA
Brazil and then MHA Petten.
MR. BRAZIL:
I concur on two sides here;
one, I still think clause 5, the discretionary use, that would come back for
that discussion. Again, I would think we'd confuse it and make it more
complicated by putting number of hours attached to it, the salary base is based
on years of experience versus whoever – if it's me, who there's an accusation
against or I want someone to defend me, if I'm making a complaint, would have
that particular person with their skill set, regardless of what they're worth in
the eyes of an entity outside.
I would think that the
case-by-case review that would look at what the expenditures are at the end of
the day that's approved, that would be where I would land.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Petten.
MR. PETTEN:
Yeah, I guess basically, I
was going to – pretty well what Dave just said in a nutshell.
Just to
Minister Haggie's point of setting a rate or setting an amount, I get the point,
but I guess I'd probably be a dissenting voice in the sense, I think I like some
surety. You know, you like to have that comfort level that there is some surety
when you're left to the mercy of a committee to make approvals.
In the
sense of there are some sensitive issues, I think some strong consideration
should be given to have a base amount. Whether that turns out to be the standard
that they'll charge and go up from there, I don't know, but I'm of the belief
you need some surety and a sense of security for Members if they're faced with
that.
I agree
with part 2 of that, too. Is this based on hours; $50 to $350, I think that
clouds the issue. That number 5 could be applied right across this extreme
circumstances, too. I think you could have that extreme circumstance in either
one of them, but I do like to have a set amount or I'd like to have it
considered to be some kind of surety.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coffin.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you.
I have
to agree with MHA Petten in that, yes, we need some certainty for Members
knowing that if you are accused or you're subject to legal action, you need to
have some certainty that you are going to be taken care of there. However, I
think coming to the Management Commission, we have to give credit to our
colleagues here. We are smart, we know we have great resources available to us,
we're going to be very certain of what each of the circumstances are. So I think
the certainty of knowing the Management Commission will review it for
appropriateness and applicability, I think that might be enough certainty.
Certainly, you and I had a conversation previously about how this works in
labour relations. If an individual in a union has a complaint, you reach out to
your union and then your committee is assigned, and they determine the validity
of your complaint, whether or not it has enough merit to move forward on. So,
does it become a grievance and then is it actionable and then are there legal
resources applied to it.
I think
by the time you get down to we're actually spending money on it, lots and lots
of people have been consulted, and I think the boxes have been checked. So I
feel quite comfortable coming to the Management Commission and saying, this is
an issue, we need your advice on whether or not we should proceed on this and
will the legal fees be covered. I am also tending towards the case-by-case basis
because of the nuance in all of the cases and circumstances could vary widely.
Now, I
do want to jump and ask, when you mentioned earlier that all legal fees would be
covered, is that an automatic? If we choose case-by-case basis and we say, yes,
this has merit and we deserve to pay, can we say, yes, all the legal fees will
be paid or can the recommendation be up to a certain dollar value?
CLERK:
That is within the
discretion –
MS. COFFIN:
That's in our discretion?
CLERK:
That is within the
discretion, because as we pointed out in the policy parameters, depending on
what you adopt, right?
MS. COFFIN:
Yes, yes.
CLERK:
So you would probably
institute – in saying a case by case, you would probably give some guidance in –
MS. COFFIN:
Right.
CLERK:
– terms of the legal expenses arise out of or directly related to the Member
carrying out their duties as a Member. So it's quite clear to Members, if you
get into a personal situation or it's an electoral matter, don't even bother to
come forward because it's not covered.
If a
Member has not initiated proceedings, so that would be – this is where we get
into trouble in the Code of Conduct because probably we would have to look at
that as a Management Commission because we have complainants and respondents
both being Members in that sort of situation.
In a
general situation, if a Member decided to go out and sue citizen x because they
said something about the way they undertook their duties as a Member of the
Management Commission, you wouldn't cover that; but, if citizen X launched a
suit against a Member because they didn't like, that's legitimate. You have to
cover the Members in the performance of their roles, right.
MS. RUSSELL:
So case by case,
essentially, means that the Management Commission has discretion, whether it be
for – in terms of looking at the matter and whether it's going to be reimbursed
and then the amount that it would reimburse.
MS. COFFIN:
Yeah. Okay, so discretion
(inaudible).
CLERK:
But these are the sorts of
things you would (inaudible).
MS. COFFIN:
Yes, yes.
MS. RUSSELL:
And these are the ones –
CLERK:
(Inaudible.)
MS. COFFIN:
Yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady had something she
wanted to say.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
I just
read – turn to page 4 – the options that are before us, and my mind keeps going
to a bit of a hybrid and maybe we want to – I'm a decision maker, so I don't
like pushing it off to the next meeting, but time to craft the best motion, give
us that time. I'm leaning towards, and I'm hearing a general sense of
case-by-case basis and we'd need to set some parameters around that maybe, and
you've given us some good policy parameters here to consider, but if we set
limits and give it per complaint or per instance amount of money, I think we're
trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
These
are extraordinary circumstances that we've had over the last number of years and
I'm kind of thinking more case-by-case basis, which is not one of our – unless
we want to try and craft a resolution here at the table, which I think would be
much more difficult.
CLERK:
Well, we could craft one to
say that the Commission wishes to develop a policy based on a case-by-case basis
and considering certain policy parameters. We could draft that as a policy
statement and then bring it back for finalization, but at least the direction
would be we're working on a case-by-case basis as opposed to lump sum or
something like that, right? So we would be further ahead.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll go to Dr. Haggie first.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Chair.
This is
directly to the Clerk's point, which in actual fact is – let's leave ourselves a
little bit of discretion and maybe instead of policy, you might even want to use
the word guidelines. I hate wordsmithing on the fly, but the bottom line is I
really think we're in such exceptional territory. It's that 1 per cent of
situations where you're trying to write a policy that might be read by 99 per
cent of everybody else.
I think
I'm hearing a broad consensus that we need to have the ability to be a bit more
thoughtful about these. It's not like it's happening every week, fortunately,
and if four in 12 years is what it is, then – it would be nice if it was less,
but it's manageable. That was my only comment.
Thanks.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm just trying to get a
sense of the consensus. I hear some people saying that the case-by-case element
of it is important, but I also hear some people saying they want surety. I'm
sort of wondering, in terms of the debate around whether or not we have a base
amount in there with also the flexibility to do some case by case for larger
amounts, I'm wondering is – someone mentioned the possibility that we might
encourage people, but I'm also wondering, is there a possibility that
discouraging people might be a bad thing? I'm just wondering.
MHA
Coady.
MS. COADY:
I'm sensitive to the fact of ensuring people know they have coverage. I'm
sensitive to that, very much so, but I think if we had the guidelines – and I
thought it was a smart word – if we had the guidelines helping people understand
that, yes, they have a means and a mechanism to be covered and here are the
guidelines for that, I think that might give them the surety that we all want to
give them, versus saying $5,000 per incident. That worries me a little bit,
because then you might put in five or six incidents, but if we had the
guidelines and said here are the parameters that we're thinking about and we'll
adjudicate it on a case-by-case basis because maybe it's more; maybe it's less.
I
thought Ms. Coffin gave a really good – she is correct. We have great Table
staff and great memory and we can look at other jurisdictions on an ongoing
basis and understandings, I think, that will help us as we go through these
guidelines and parameters.
So I'm
sensitive of the fact that ensuring people understand these parameters and
guidelines are there for them and that there is an opportunity for reimbursement
of legal expense, I think, is important.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll go to Dr. Haggie first
and then Mr. Petten.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thanks, Mr. Speaker.
Based
on my experiences elsewhere I think if you set a sum, it becomes what I would
call a second-order problem and whilst the people in here who would manage the
policy won't do anything, the word will get out that that's what you can get.
And that will be what the bill will be when it comes back because it won't be us
– and no disparaging comments about lawyers intended at all here but if you're a
professional individual and you know you're eligible for $5,000, then you'll
find $5,000 worth of work to submit.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Petten.
MR. PETTEN:
I just wanted to clarify,
Mr. Speaker, you did say – and I did say I think we need an amount there, and
case by case I have no issue with that. But I restate – I said this when we met
last time too – I think the surety is required. Like, you got someone being
faced with having to get a lawyer. They're going in on the blind. They're going
in based on this committee, and I'm not knocking anyone around this room,
everyone is going to be fair, us included, but they're going in really on the
blind, so to speak.
That
$5,000 threshold, I know where Minister Haggie is coming from, it makes sense,
but I guess that can be applied across the board to a lot of professions. My
point is, to know you have a base amount, to know you have something that you're
covered with, you may need to pay a retainer to a lawyer to find out where you
stand, what's really involved here, almost like the ground rules. Without that
there, you're kind of at the mercy of this committee on your own, to a degree,
until us as a committee approves it.
That's
where I struggle in my mind. I'm thinking we're exposing our Members to – we may
cover it. I hope that if it's legit we're going to agree to it, but the $5,000
threshold is not meant to be blank cheque for a lawyer, it's meant to be a
protection to an MHA that they have that surety when they go and if something
happens, through no fault of their own, they can go down and see whatever lawyer
they want and get advice and they'll need to pay a retainer to get through the
door.
I just
think it's enough stress obviously if you're faced with a legal challenge or
what have you in the course of your duties. That's the surety point I'm trying
to make. It's not a matter of any abuse involved, it's to be able to protect the
people that sit in the House and are exposed on a daily basis like we are.
That's all it is. It's not about a blank cheque. I get that argument, but I
respectfully disagree because we're talking about reimbursing legal fees and
protection of all our MHAs' interests.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm going to go to MHA
Loveless first and then I think MHA Coady.
MR. LOVELESS:
I'm going to try to add to
this. I concur with Dr. Haggie in a lot of what he said and I'm leaning towards
the case by case as well but in terms of the protection – I know where you are,
Mr. Petten, in terms of the protection. I do have a bit of concern in terms of
I'm sitting there knowing that I do have protection of $5,000, I don't know if
it's going to encourage me – let me see if I can find my words – to not behave
in a certain way.
I don't
know if it is a protection or not. I don't know. My mind is in different areas
here but I'm hoping it would be a protection, other than someone looking at it
and saying I'm protected, so I'm going to say something more than I should. Is
it, at that point, a protection? I don't know. I raise that as a concern as a
Member of this Management Commission.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Just following up because
I'm sensitive to what you're indicating and it is something that worries me is
that making sure that people know they have coverage.
I'm
wondering if, as part of the guidelines, just a thought process here, we
indicate that initial consultation will be covered and that a timely response –
and I don't know if that's 10 days, 15 days, 20 days of the Management
Commission would be satisfactory. I'm just throwing it out there because I'm
sensitive to what you're saying, but I'm also sensitive to the fact that $5,000
per instance, it might be a great thing, I don't know, but I'm concerned about
that.
I'm
just trying to find some mechanism in the guidelines that might address the
concerns that you're indicating. Just an option.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, you have something
related to – then we'll go to MHA Brazil, if that's okay.
MS. HAWLEY GEORGE:
I'm aware of the fact
that I'm not a member of the Commission, so thank you for letting me speak.
What I
did want to point out is it is possible in the guidelines that you're
developing, or you're considering developing, to put in language that indicates
that in Code of Conduct aspect the Management Commission will treat both the
complainant and the respondent equitably. Because as my memory of other
conversations that you have had about this policy, that was one of your
concerns. That might meet that concern there, and then you don't have to be
pinned down by particular language or choose.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Brazil.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
first eliminate one thing. I'm wholeheartedly sold on case-by-case process. My
first comment was about I still feel there has to be a surety there of being
able to start it not – and I have no disrespect for anybody who's here, who's
been here in the past, who will be in the future. To me, and from day one, the
discussion was already about us having a reassurance of protection in the case
that we need to make an accusation to protect ourselves or we're being accused
of something, as part of that.
With
that being said, what Minister Coady is proposing would get us not exactly where
we would go for full surety, but at least gets us over the threshold, in my
opinion, of saying my first bit of legal advice, which would tell me whether or
not I'm on the right path to proceed forward, would be covered so I'm not
incurring any expense.
As the
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune had said, it's a Catch-22. Would it
encourage me to do more or would it deter me? In this case, that proposal, to
me, would make it equitable, that you would go in not sure, but you don't want
to incur an expense that may be out of your own pocket, yet it protects you to
know whether or not I have rights to move forward that the Commission would
consider it. Because I would think the legal advice, the first initial one,
would look at our parameters and their definition from a legal point of view,
and the parameters around whatever the legal action you're taking, whether or
not that would go forward on that basis.
So, I
could live with going on the case by case, but having at least the initial legal
consultation being covered, if that's (inaudible). Again, that would have to be
on the case by case because individuals could be totally different and it would
be on every incident also.
Anyway,
I think that might be in part of our policy that could be adopted.
MS. RUSSELL:
I just want to ask a question in terms of being able to draft any guidelines
that would be brought forward.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Bobbi is trying to
draft a motion as (inaudible) –
MS. RUSSELL:
In terms of initial consultation – because that's a little, I guess, wide open
in terms of the initial consultation and what that would mean. So that's just
the first time you go in through the door of the lawyer's office and then
however many hours that takes, whether it's five hours or four hours. I'm just
wondering, in terms of do you want to leave just as the consultation, what would
that mean?
The
other point, before my mic is turned off, because I know it was mentioned around
the table about putting timelines on the Management Commission dealing with the,
I guess, initial request, whether you said making commitments to deal with it
within 10 days or 15 days. Just to put it out there that in terms of boxing the
Commission into deal with it in a certain time frame, Commission meetings are
not always – because there are a number of you that have to – in co-ordinating
schedules, in terms of scheduling meetings, it may not always be possible to
deal with a request in a certain amount of time whether it be whatever the
Commission decided. Just to put that out there for consideration in terms of any
guidelines that are put in place.
MR. SPEAKER:
Did you have something
related to that?
CLERK:
I do want to point out,
though, in terms of a timely response, we do have a provision for getting the
direction of the Commission on urgent financial matters where we don't go to the
full Commission, we go to a subset of the Commission. Then the decision is
ratified at a subsequent meeting.
We
could craft in a draft guidance statement something along that line, if you
thought that might be helpful. I'm just throwing it out there.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think MHA Coady, and Dr.
Haggie is next.
MS. COADY:
We can define initial
consultation, it could be $1,000. I'm not adverse to it either, an amount or
timelines or whatever. I'm more interested in a concept that if I need to
consult with my lawyer, I can do so in a very timely manner and then go to the
Commissioner and I know that within – I have a timely response within 15 days or
whatever the appropriate amount is. I don't want to make policy on the fly
either. Whatever the appropriate amount of time is, so that I know I can go talk
to my lawyer and I can have a decision in a very short period of time.
That's
kind of my protection is what I'm thinking about from a policy perspective.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Dr. Haggie.
MR. HAGGIE:
Yes, I think we've actually
almost answered the option question that was put before us on the briefing note.
We're actually into the next meeting already.
I think
the points that are being brought up are actually great. I just wonder if, from
a process point of view, this isn't an opportunity to say, has the staff got
enough from the table to craft something that we could bring back and discuss
next time and vote on?
MS. RUSSELL:
Just one more question from
my perspective.
In
terms of the initial consultation, would that be intended for all legal matters
regardless of whether it's under the Code of Conduct or public interest
disclosure, or just for Code of Conduct? Because that wasn't made clear when it
was put out.
AN HON. MEMBER:
I would think all.
MR. BRAZIL:
Because all are severe, in
dealing with it.
MS. RUSSELL:
Yes.
MS. COADY:
Not harassment, though,
because it's dealt with separately.
MS. RUSSELL:
Harassment is dealt with
separately, yes.
CLERK:
Harassment doesn't provide –
MS HAWLEY GEORGE:
The policy doesn't
provide for harassment under Code of Conduct, right?
CLERK:
Yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Does anyone else want
to make a comment before we –?
MS. RUSSELL:
Do you want to make a motion
just to defer a decision – yes, just defer it until the next meeting.
AN HON. MEMBER:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
A motion to defer to the
next meeting where we'll have options presented.
Seconded by –
MR. BRAZIL:
I'll second it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, yes.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Okay,
good.
That's
our last item, I believe.
CLERK:
That's the last item.
We need
a motion to adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
A motion to adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Passed.
On
motion, meeting adjourned.