July 30, 2020 House of Assembly Management Commission No. 78
The Management Commission met at 9 a.m. via video conference.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Okay, we're live now, so I'll call the meeting to order.
Before we get started, I just want to welcome all the Members to this broadcast,
and all the people watching as well.
Before we start, I'd like to introduce the Members of the Commission and the
staff present at this meeting today. First, there's the hon. Siobhan Coady,
Government House Leader; Ms. Alison Coffin, Member for St. John's East - Quidi
Vidi; the hon. John Haggie, Member for Gander; Mr. Elvis Loveless, Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune; Mr. Barry Petten, Member for Conception Bay South;
Mr. Derek Bennet, Deputy Speaker; Ms. Sandra Barnes, Clerk of the House of
Assembly and secretary to the Commission; and Ms. Bobbi Russell, Policy and
Communications Officer.
Today, in keeping with our practice as we experiment with these online meetings
and broadcast, we have a fairly light agenda for today. First item is the
approval of the minutes; then, we have a couple reporting items in relation to
budget transfers and caucus operation funding grant reports, and then an item
related to caucus funding. So we'll work our way through this.
Do we have any comments or questions on the minutes? Okay.
We need a motion, then, to adopt the minutes.
Dr. Haggie, and Mr. Petten seconded.
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
The next two items are reporting items. The
House of Assembly Transfer of Funds
Policy requires only certain budget transfers to be approved by the
Commission; however, the policy requires that all transfers of funds be reported
to the Commission at the end of the fiscal year to ensure transparency. Details
of every budget transfer approved during the 2019-2020 fiscal year are included
in the briefing package. That's also available online.
This is just a reporting item, there's no decision required.
Does anyone have any comments or questions in relation to this item? No, okay.
This is just, I guess, the – a lot of it happens at the end of the year as we
have budgets spent in one item and need funds in another item, so there's a
transfer. It's sort of a very regular practice within government, especially as
we approach the end of the fiscal year.
We'll move to the next item, which is item 3 on our agenda, which is related to
caucus operational funding grant reports for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. Similar
to the last item, this is just a reporting item.
The Caucus Operational Funding Grants
Policy requires each caucus, the Office of the Speaker, and any independent
Members, to submit to the Management Commission a report detailing expenditures
on the use of allocations within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year. In
accordance with the policy, reports detailing expenditures for the period from
May 16, 2019, to March 31, 2020, have been received and are included in the
briefing package.
The report presented to the Commission for the fiscal year commencing May 16,
2019, which was the date of the 2019 general election; reports for the period
April 1, 2019, to April 17, 2019, of the 48th General Assembly were submitted to
the Commission last year.
As I said earlier, this is a reporting item and no decision on this is required.
Does anyone have any questions or comments on this? No.
Okay, moving right along then.
So the next item relates to inconsistencies which have been identified between
the caucus fund policy provision and the definition of caucuses in the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, which defines a caucus as a group of two
or more Members who belong to the same registered political party. The
requirement for registration of political parties is outlined in accordance with
the Elections Act, 1991.
The issue was identified in May 2019, when considering the potential outcome of
the election of the 49th General Assembly, as a fourth registered political
party was fielding candidates. Should a registered political party elect only
one Member to the House of Assembly, no funding can be provided to that Member
based on the current provisions.
So the briefing package provides a summary of the caucus funding policy
provisions, as well as a summary table of the current caucus funding
allocations.
I'm going to open the floor for comment. I see hon. Siobhan Coady wishes to
speak.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning everyone.
I'm completely in support of the recommendations here. I think it's essential
that Members be treated equally. We do know the independents do receive the
stipend as well, but because it's specific – this
says
caucus of two or more.
I do note that we don't want any unintended consequences here. When Justice
Green made his report, he suggested a caucus of two. So I would suggest Option
2, which is the Commission directs the definition of caucus in the act to remain
as it, but provides specific policy direction on the funding allocation for a
registered political party with one elected Member.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Did I see someone else have a hand up?
Ms. Coffin.
MS. COFFIN:
Half a hand. I'm thinking about this now in the context of what are the
responsibilities of a party of one. We do have another factor at play right now.
We do have a fourth political party in our province that can potentially have
seats; they're talking about running a full slate of candidates.
So maybe Ms. Barnes can perhaps provide a little bit more direction on this in
terms of if we were to have a caucus of one and if it was a different party than
we currently have, then are there implications for seats on Committees and other
activities that the party would need to be participating in?
One
of the things that I talk about from my caucus is we have a very small caucus,
but we have exactly the same responsibilities as everyone else. We have to sit
on Standing Orders and we're sitting on House Management. We're sitting on all
the Committees and we have representations all over the place, so the
responsibilities are the same; they're just spread amongst fewer people.
In terms of that, maybe Ms. Barnes can provide a little bit of direction in
terms of the responsibilities and that might help frame the discussion a little
bit more.
MR. SPEAKER:
Ms. Barnes.
CLERK (Barnes):
We have to separate the parliamentary aspect from the administrative aspect
because Green only speaks to the administrative aspect. I guess the rights of
caucuses and Members in the House are defined through our Standing Orders
process.
However, we have a real-life example: From 2007 to 2011, former MHA Lorraine
Michael represented the Third Party in the House and she was a caucus of one.
Even though they didn't change the act or anything at the time, she did receive
base funding which allows staffing resources for the caucus, in addition to the
variable funding component.
Of course, all of the caucuses and the independent Members receive an
operational funding component. It's currently in the order of about $124 a
month. Of course, a caucus, it's based on a floor of eight Members. For example,
after the 2011 election, when the Official Opposition, which was the Liberal
Party, held six seats and the Third Party, which was the NDP, held 5 seats, that
operational funding grant afforded them based on eight Members – that
operational funding component, not the variable, the operational piece, because
that's what the funding policy allows. The funding policy recognizes that in
receiving caucus funding you need support resources quite different than if you
were an unaffiliated or an independent Member where you represent your district,
because caucus, obviously representing a registered political party, has to
develop and articulate provincial positions on policy.
From a parliamentary perspective, even though our Standing Orders are not
codified in this respect, we have a long-standing practice of the Third Party
being given time in Question Period, representation on Committees and the
ability to speak to Ministerial Statements – a response to Ministerial
Statements. There's a long-standing practice. So whenever anything changes in
the House, if it's not codified in the Standing Orders, we look at our practices
to see how we handled it in the past.
Did I answer your question?
MS. COFFIN:
And that the two are separate and distinct, that's nice to hear.
In terms of Option 1 and Option 2, I appreciate where Minister Coady came from
when we talk about Option 2 being a reasonable option but it says it provides
specific policy direction. Does that mean that this would come back to the House
Management Commission to make a decision, or there's just guidance along the way
so it's going to be based on at the time there will be an interpretation of the
policy?
MR. SPEAKER:
Do you want to deal with that Sandra or …?
CLERK:
MHA Coady would.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, we'll go to MHA Coady first.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
My interpretation of it – and I think that's where my head was – was rather than
change Green's intent, we would make a policy decision for the go-forward. So we
wouldn't hope to bring it back to Management. It could be changed in the future
depending on where things go, but that we have a policy decision that says that
a caucus of one receives the funding. Because, right now, independent Members
receive the funding, so there's no reason why a caucus of one shouldn't receive
that funding.
We know what Green had said in his report and by just making it a policy
decision, we don't have any other knock-on effects or unintended consequences
that we are not considering today.
I just think if we could put it in policy and set policy that says a caucus of
one receives this funding, I think that's clear and clean.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Just my understanding is the funding that the independent Members receive – I'm
just going to seek clarification from Sandra on this, but the funding that the
independent Members receive is just based on one Member, and it's at the
variable rate, the same variable rate that caucuses receive funding based on
each additional Member they have. But the independents don't receive the base
amount of the funding.
CLERK:
That's correct.
MR. SPEAKER:
So is what we're talking about here, if there's a caucus of one – and a
registered party has to go through a fairly rigorous process, I think, to become
a party. You have to have so many signatures; you have to run so many candidates
and things like that before you're considered a registered party.
If a Member were elected, one Member for a fourth party, say, then would they
receive – what we're talking about is them receiving that base amount as well?
CLERK:
Correct.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
CLERK:
Correct, yes.
A caucus representing a registered political party would receive the base
funding. That allows them to get staffing resources to support them in their
parliamentary function.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
The rationale behind this is if you're the leader or you're a representative of
a registered party, you have a broader responsibility than an independent Member
would. So part of that additional base funding is to allow Members or
representatives of a caucus, registered party, to be able to do the broader
research that they need to represent the whole province, I guess, on issues,
rather than just a constituency.
CLERK:
Correct. So these would be the resources to help prep for Question Period, help
prep responses to Ministerial Statements, to do the research for participation
in Committees, those sorts of parliamentary duties.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm seeing two other people. I'm going to go with Barry first and then Siobhan.
Barry.
MR. PETTEN:
Yes, thanks, Mr. Speaker.
To the point, I don't have any real issue with either way we go with this, but I
think something needs to be taken into consideration year to year. Sandra's
points about the money would be used for research on Ministerial Statements or
QP or bills, legislation, what have you – legislation takes a lot of research,
as people might realize. When the bills are in the House our researchers work,
put in a lot of hours researching, getting the background information to help
all of us. But the two independent Members, they talk on all legislation. They
partake and they get one day they ask some questions. I guess what I'm saying is
why are we differentiating between the two independents and a caucus of one,
because whether we want to agree with it or not, the two independents represent
a dissentient voice out in the province.
They only represent their districts but if you follow the two of them, they get
a following of people that are not really enthused with what they see in the
political world that we all offer. So I think you have to take that into account
when you're looking at 40 Members in the Legislature. There's a three-party
system there now and the independents, so you're going to bring a fourth party
in and you're going to treat them differently than your two independents there
who have rightful seats – they own two of 40 seats.
So I just want to throw that out there for consideration because I think that to
go along and give them extra funding than what you're going to give an
independent, I'm not so sure they're doing a whole lot more than what the two
independents are doing. I just throw that in there for consideration because I
think this is probably missing in this argument or this debate.
Thanks.
MR. SPEAKER:
Siobhan.
MS. COADY:
I think Sandra raised her hand. I'm just allowing, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk to
respond to Mr. Petten I think.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
CLERK:
I just want to make it clear that the independents do receive an amount of
$23,000 a year and that allows them to hire research assistants. They typically
hire those people when the House is sitting to support them. It's like a
part-time position, and it's up to them who they hire and how they long they
hire them for.
MR. SPEAKER:
Siobhan.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For
example, I understand the Leader of the Third Party is now in Labrador. They
have to travel; they have to represent the people of the province, so I do see a
differentiation in what the requirements of a party would be versus what the
requirements of a sessional person would be. All I'm saying is I'm supporting
this funding.
MR. SPEAKER:
Barry.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, what would be the base funding for this party of one? What would
they get? Independent MHAs get $22-and-some-odd thousand, plus $123 per month
for caucus funds, you said, so what would be given to a party of one? What would
be their amounts?
MR. SPEAKER:
Sandra.
CLERK:
If you look at the table at the end of the Briefing Note, the Third Party would
receive $127,632 per fiscal year in their base funding and then every caucus
receives the variable amount based on the number of Members. Then, the
operational funding, that $123.65 a month, an independent Member receives that
amount per month, so it's about $1,300 or $1,400 a year, whereas a caucus, the
floor is established of eight Members, so that's the minimum.
The monthly allowance would be $123.65 times eight, no matter if you're one or
if you're five. As I said, in 2011 the Official Opposition had six Members, they
got it for eight; the Third Party had five Members, they got it for eight. I can
remember after the 2015 election you got it for eight, but then when you get
more Members it goes up by the number of Members. It's exponential.
MR. SPEAKER:
Barry, I'm sorry, I can't –
MR. PETTEN: Sorry.
MR. SPEAKER:
Go ahead. I couldn't hear you there.
MR. PETTEN:
Sorry, I think I was muted.
Are there any other legislatures across this country that has this similar
situation? Are you using this from any other examples around? I know federally
we have, what is it, four parties federally now? So are there any other examples
around that you can use or are we kind of just breaking new ground?
CLERK:
We're not breaking new ground at all. Our caucus funding formula was developed
by – they hired independent consultants back in 2008 who came forward with the
report. The Metrics report it's referred to, it's online. It was considered
quite thoroughly, I guess, by the Management Commission of the day, before the
final decisions were made, so it's relevant to our situation.
We're in a different position because our administration is governed by a piece
of legislation, whereas across the country they have taken various approaches to
it in terms of how their Management Commissions or Boards of Internal Economy
have dealt with it. Some of it is tied into their definition of official party
status in their Standing Orders. We don't have that term in our Standing Orders,
so it's difficult to draw exact comparisons.
MR. SPEAKER:
Just a question, Sandra, to get more background there.
So this was done in the early '90s, and part of that was a cross-jurisdictional
analysis of funding formulas for caucuses across the country, I believe. Is that
correct?
CLERK:
No, this was done in 2008. It was one of the post-Green exercises that were
conducted. They hired an independent consultant that did all that jurisdiction
analysis and came forward and made a number of recommendations. There's a
briefing note that actually tracks that history. We distributed it, I think,
last November, Bobbi? I think it was. I can resend it to everyone because it
does give the history and any changes that were made to the caucus-funding
formula. But that's essentially what everything has been based on since then.
There are adjustments to the formula on an annual basis. It's adjusted by the
Consumer Price Index. For example, that operational funding grant started off as
$100 per Member in 2008 and now it's $123.65. It's adjusted on an annual basis
by CPI adjustment, similarly to the variable funding per Member. The base hasn't
been adjusted.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Yes.
I guess it's good to make this kind of decision now rather than after because
we're able to make the decision now based on what the best policy is, rather
than making a decision after an election based on how it would impact each of
the parties involved. I guess doing it now allows us to examine the policy in a
more theoretical way.
CLERK:
Yes.
The issue being, Mr. Speaker, is that the day after the election, the caucuses
will reach out to us asking what is available to them in terms of funding for
staffing and space and all those sorts of things. So we do need clarity because
it's only fair that every caucus is up and running as quickly as possible
following an election.
In the absence of clarity, and you have a caucus with one Member, it's going to
put us in a really – it's not a good spot to be, from a policy perspective.
MR. SPEAKER:
I noticed MHA Coady has her hand up.
MS. COADY:
I just want to make sure we're clear. There is precedence on this from 2007-2011
with the Third Party, correct?
CLERK:
Correct.
MS. COADY:
So this is not anything new. We're codifying it – if we can use that word – and
making it so that this is the policy that will carry on.
CLERK:
Yes, exactly.
As a matter of fact, if you go and you look at
Hansard when the Management
Commission discussed this, several times, actually, former MHA Michael mentioned
that she was a caucus of one, and I guess they just didn't twig to the fact that
the act said two or more. The Third Party definitely received the caucus funding
for the 2007-2011 period.
Of course, in 2011, it wouldn't have even been thought about because the
election results were such that it wouldn't have been a problem. And, obviously,
we didn't pick it up in 2015 either. But I think what happened is we were
looking at it very closely last year, because it was the first time we actually
had a fourth registered party running and we were looking, okay, where would we
find space for everybody and what would the funding allocation – what would the
requirements be, and we noticed this gap.
To be quite honest, we couldn't authorize the funding based on the past practice
simply because the legislation says something different. Then right after an
election it's very difficult to get the Management Commission together to deal
with this problem. So it's better to be prepared.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MHA Coffin.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, I'm off mute?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MS. COFFIN:
Okay, I think going back to – I remember when we discussed this very early on, a
caucus is a caucus is a caucus. They have the same responsibilities all across
the province. Even if you don't have a Member in a particular jurisdiction,
there are still people who vote for that party and you have to ensure that the
people who are there who support the views are appropriately represented. So I
think we do need to recognize that, and it certainly sounds like the discussion
we're having right now is leading us to the place where, yes, we do need to have
the appropriate supports in place, no matter the size of the caucus.
I see the benefits to developing a good policy. My question now would be what
would be the next step? If we go with Option 2 are we going to write that policy
right now, or will we hand that over to Ms. Barnes and Ms. Russell to put
together that policy and we'll come back to the House Management Commission for
our aye or nay on that?
MR. SPEAKER:
Sandra.
CLERK:
Based on the direction of the Management Commission, we would rewrite the policy
and bring back the draft policy document for the final stamp of approval to the
Management Commission.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further comments on this?
Alison.
MS. COFFIN:
I'm very comfortable with going with Option 2. I look forward to seeing what
that policy says. I'm comfortable, and if everyone else is comfortable –
everyone is nodding so I think we're in a good spot right now, but I'd just like
to say I would support Option 2.
MR. SPEAKER:
If that's the case, we'll need a motion to direct the Clerk and staff of the
House to develop that policy.
I see Dr. Haggie has his hand up there.
I'm going to ask Ms. Russell, does she have a draft motion in that regard, based
on what we've discussed?
MS. RUSSELL:
Based on the discussion and the fact that it seems that the Commission is in
agreement with going with Option 2, the motion would just be that the Commission
directs an amendment to the caucus funding policy provisions to deal with caucus
funding for one Member of a registered political party to be brought back to the
Commission at a future meeting.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll go back to Dr. Haggie.
MR. HAGGIE:
(Inaudible) she said.
MR. SPEAKER:
Dr. Haggie moves that motion.
Do we have a seconder? Okay, I see Barry's hand first.
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
Any other items anyone would like to raise?
So we've gone through our agenda items. Have we established a time for our next
meeting or do we need to do that now or will we send out a – have we set the
time for our next meeting? Sandra?
CLERK:
No, we haven't because the government now is going to face a new Leader and
there's going to be a bit of a transition period. I would suggest that probably
around the third week of August. We have plenty of things to bring forward to
the Management Commission.
Bobbi, I think we can wait until the third week of August to deal with whatever
is outstanding, but that will give them time in case there are any changes to
the composition of the Management Commission from a government perspective.
Does that sound reasonable? So we'll just put out a call in terms of when it –
MR. SPEAKER:
So sometime around the third week in August.
CLERK:
If I might, we would follow the same practice and try to keep it to one hour at
a time. I find this particular format is really efficient to move things forward
and get it done.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
If there's no further business, I'm going to ask for a motion to adjourn.
Dr. Haggie moves the motion; seconded by Mr. Loveless.
All those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
Okay, thank you very much, and I'll see you all (inaudible).
On motion, meeting adjourned.