March
16, 2016
The
Management Commission met at approximately 5:30 p.m. in the House of Assembly
Chamber.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
I believe we're live. Before we call the Management Commission meeting to order,
I will ask individuals to identify or introduce themselves.
I'll
start with the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, MHA,
Ferryland District.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Paul Davis, MHA for Topsail
– Paradise.
MR. BROWNE:
Mark Browne, MHA, Placentia
West – Bellevue.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo
– La Poile.
MS. COADY:
Siobhan Coady, MHA, St.
John's West.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, MHA, St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
CLERK:
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MS. KEEFE:
Marie Keefe, Clerk's Office.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm Tom Osborne. I'm Chair
of the Management Commission.
Okay,
we'll get right to business.
Tab 1,
approval of the minutes for September 22, 2015.
Are
there any discussions, any questions?
Can I
have a motion that the Commission approves the minutes for September 22?
Okay,
the motion is made by Andrew Parsons; seconded by Lorraine Michael.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tab 2 are reports including
the Speaker's report for rulings on allowance use, the Speaker's report for
long-term vehicle rentals and the Clerk's report for authorizations on furniture
and equipment. There are no decisions required. I'll simply read in, for these
decisions were made. These are ordinary items that are done through the course
of Members' business. For those who are viewing or for the record, I'll read
into the record what these are.
The
first report is rulings on allowance use. They're provided in accordance with
the requirements of the Members'
Resources and Allowances Rules, and it's for reporting purposes only. The
report is the Speaker's approval of appeals of claims by Members, which the
Speaker approved for payment after the 60-day filing period. The details of the
approval are provided in your briefing materials. For the purpose of anybody who
may be viewing, these are, generally, requests that otherwise would be approved
but have gone beyond the 60-day time frame, so we saw fit to approve those.
The
second report is on long-term vehicle rentals, which was provided in accordance
with the reporting requirements and, again, is for reporting purposes only. This
report includes an approval of the Speaker for long-term vehicle rentals in
excess of 30 days, which must have the prior approval of the Clerk and the
Speaker, and be reported at a subsequent meeting of the Commission. That's what
we're doing here today.
The
third report is the Clerk's report on the authorizations of furniture and
equipment. This is a report on authorizations. The Commission has delegated
authority to the Clerk to pre-approve expenditures to a maximum of $500 for
furniture and equipment other than that listed in the standard office allocation
package. The Clerk is required to report all such approvals to the Commission,
and that's what is happening at this meeting today.
Tab 3,
financial information, which is April 1, 2015, to September 30, 2015, and April
1, 2015, to December 31, 2015; there is no decision required on this. It's for
reporting purposes only. The House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act requires that
financial information be reported to the Commission on a regular basis. This
agenda item is for reporting purposes only and no decision required.
There
are two sets of financial statements provided in the briefing package for the
House of Assembly service, caucus offices and the statutory offices. Member
accountability and disclosure reports outlining expenditures for each Member are
provided for each period. The first statements are from April 1, 2015, to
September 30, 2015.
I ask
if there are any questions with respect to any of these statements before I
carry on to what is next. Any Members' have questions or statements? Okay.
The
second is for the period April 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015. Again, are there
any questions or comments? Okay.
Tab 4,
budget transfer request; this does require a decision. It's a transfer of funds
to Government Members Caucus Grants and Subsidies to provide for operational
funding for the period of November 30, 2015, to March 31, 2016. It's as a result
of the changes in caucuses after the election and additional Members in the
government caucus. Details and reasoning for the transfers are outlined in the
package, which is essentially what I've just described.
Are
there any questions or comments from any of the Members? Okay.
I would
ask for a motion that the Commission approves the following transfer of funds
from subdivision 1.1.07.10, Official Opposition Caucus – Grants and Subsidies
$900 to subdivision 1.1.06.10, Government Members Caucus – Grants and Subsidies
$900.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by the Member for
Ferryland; seconded by the the parliamentary assistant to the Premier.
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) I just wanted to
ask a question to the Management Commission. Is this something that's done,
then, on a regular basis after the fact, or is it usually done before the
quarter? What happens after April 1?
MR. SPEAKER:
This is reporting and,
again, it's as a result of change in the composition of one caucus to the change
in the composition of another caucus and funds had to be transferred.
I will
ask Sandra Barnes to elaborate.
MR. P. DAVIS:
This will be part of your budget for April.
CLERK:
The Commission has delegated authority for certain transfers to the Clerk and
the chief financial officer; however, any transfers from grants have
to be approved by the Management Commission. We don't have that level of
authority. So we need the approval before we can do the transfer. Even though it
seems like housekeeping post-election, we still need to have the authority of
the Management Commission in order to –
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay, that's –
CLERK:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other questions or
comments?
Tab 5,
the Appointment of a Chair and Member for the Audit Committee, and this does
require a decision of the Management Commission. The Audit Committee is
established under the authority of section 23 of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, which requires the Commission to appoint
two members of the Commission to the Audit Committee and to designate the Chair
of the Audit Committee.
As the
Commission has been reconstituted for the Forty-Eighth General Assembly, the
Commission must appoint two members and a Chair to that Committee. So there are
two proposed motions that I will ask somebody to put forward. One is that the
Commission appoints each of the two members to the Audit Committee effective
immediately. We'll deal with that.
Do we
have any motions?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I nominate Mr. Browne to be
a member of the Audit Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Any other
appointments?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes, I nominate Mr.
Hutchings as a member of the Audit Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. The Commission
appoints Mr. Browne and Mr. Hutchings as members of the Audit Committee
effective immediately.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Anybody against?
Motion
carried.
The
Commission also has to appoint a Chair of the Audit Committee effectively
immediately. I'll ask for motions.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Browne as Chair of the Audit Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Browne.
Any
other appointments?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Item 6,
Report on the Transfer of Constituency Assistants to the House of Assembly
Payroll.
Just to
give some background, prior to this the constituency assistants of ministers
were paid through the departments that they worked in. There's no decision
required here, but we are reporting. Since the accountability and integrity act
was put into place, it was recommended that the constituency assistants be paid
for out of the House of Assembly. That's what is happening here.
Since
2009, consultations and ongoing discussions between the Executive Branch and the
House have been held to determine the implications of transferring these
positions from departmental payrolls to the House of Assembly. As a result, the
transfer of all constituency assistants to the House of Assembly payroll became
effective December 1, 2015. This agenda item is for reporting purposes only and
there is no decision.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, can I ask a
question?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, absolutely.
MR. BROWNE:
What was the rationale for
having constituency assistants on the payrolls of departments as opposed to the
House of Assembly?
MR. SPEAKER:
I think that was the
situation for decades. When Justice Green put forward the legislation, the
accountability and integrity act, it was his recommendation that those positions
be moved from departments to the House of Assembly.
It's
taken some time to carry out that recommendation. It's probably one of the last
recommendations that needed to be carried out from that report, is my guess. I'm
not sure what the rationale was that they be paid out of departments. They were
always really employees of the House or should have been employees of the House,
especially since the accountability and integrity act. We've now made that
official.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tab 7 – before we get to
that actually, the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act requires that the substance
of any decisions made at an in-camera meeting be reported at the next public
meeting of the Commission.
On
November 2, 2015, the Commission held an in-camera meeting to discuss a
personnel issue. There was no decision made at that meeting.
Again
on November 6, 2015, the Commission held an in-camera meeting to discuss a
proposal for a new organizational structure for the Office of the Information
and Privacy Commissioner and additional financial resources to implement the new
structure. The following decisions were made at that meeting: CM 2015-037 was a
Management Commission decision.
The
Commission at its in-camera meeting of November 6, 2015, approved the proposed
organizational structure dated November 3, 2015, of the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner. To give effect to the above, the
Commission approved the following: that the Commission approved the creation of
the position of assistant commissioner at a pay scale and level to be determined
by the House of Assembly Classification Committee. The Commission approved the
creation of the position of intake officer at a pay scale and level to be
determined by the House of Assembly Classification Committee.
The
Commission approved the creation of the position of senior access and privacy
analyst advocacy and compliance at a pay scale and level to be determined by the
House of Assembly Classification Committee. The Commission approved the
abolition of the position of mediation, communication and policy analyst. The
Commission approved a permanent increase of $300,000 to the budget appropriation
for the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner allocated as follows:
Salaries, $271,500; Employee Benefits, $7,500; Transportation and
Communications, $6,000; Supplies, $3,200; Purchases Services, $11,800.
That
now brings us to Tab 7, which was the Submissions from the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner. There is a decision required on this
particular tab.
The
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has put forward two
submissions for consideration by the Commission. Submission 1: a request to
change the title of a position.
At its
November 6, 2015, in-camera meeting, the Commission approved the creation of an
intake officer position as part of the restructuring of the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner. Since that time, the Commissioner has
determined that the title of this position does not accurately reflect the
duties and responsibilities assigned to the positon. The Commissioner is
requesting the Commission's approval to change the name of the newly created
positon of intake officer to policy, planning and research analyst and that the
pay scale and level will be determined by the House of Assembly Classification
Committee.
(Alarm
sounds.)
AN HON. MEMBER:
I think we have to go, do
we?
MR. SPEAKER:
I would recommend that we
give it a couple minutes to see if this thing shuts off. If not, then we'll have
to vacate.
CLERK:
I'm going to just check with
security.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. It seems like the
alarm has gone off, so I'll continue.
The
proposed motion is that the Commission approves the change in title of the
position formally called intake officer to that of policy, planning and research
analyst at a pay scale and level to be determined by the House of Assembly
Classification Committee.
Did you
want me to read the other motion and we'll discuss them in their entirety?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Submission 2: a request to
fill the newly created positions. At its November 6, 2015, in-camera meeting the
Commission approved a new organizational structure with associated funding for
the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
This
structure included the creation of three new positions for that office. The
office was asked to provide vacancy analysis information on each of the
positions before approval was given to fill the positions. The submission by the
Commissioner provides detailed information respecting the need to fill these
positions.
I guess
since the November 6 decision, there was a hiring freeze implemented by
government and, hence, part of the reason we've asked the Commissioner to come
back and put this on the agenda.
The
proposed motion is that the Commission approves the filling of the following
three positions as approved by the November 6 restructuring submission:
assistant commissioner; policy, planning and research analyst, formerly intake
officer; and senior access and privacy analyst.
I will
now open up both proposed motions for discussion by the floor. The Commissioner
is here as well and we can call him to the floor, should Members wish to ask
questions.
Siobhan
Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
a few questions on process and then perhaps on the positions.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MS. COADY:
There are two submissions before us. I think the submission 2 is more
substantive than the submission 1, which is just a name change. The question
becomes whether we have the opportunity now to reconsider submission 2 – and I'm
asking for direction here. I'm assuming we can, or it wouldn't be before us.
As you
rightfully pointed out, we find ourselves as a province in a difficult financial
situation. We've maintained a hiring freeze at this point in time. We're
concerned about our finances. I think we need to really reflect and review the
needs of the office and the associated increase in budget.
I note
the office now carries a budget of some $1.35 million, and it will be going, I
assume, to $1.6 million. That's a substantive increase, and I think we really
need to reflect upon each of these positions and discuss whether or not we can
continue as we are for the time being, at least until after this budget, to
determine where we are going from there, and I ask for our consideration in that
regard. Perhaps we can call the Commissioner to discuss same.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Prior
to recognizing Ms. Michael, we can change the proposed motion. I'm not sure if
I'm hearing you – that we change it to keep things as they are?
MS. COADY:
My suggestion would be to
postpone any hiring decisions until at least after the budget.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
For the
knowledge of Members of the Commission, the positions I think are temporarily
filled now. Is it your recommendation that we –
MS. COADY:
Postpone making them
permanent until after the budget.
MR. SPEAKER:
Making them permanent. So
maintain them as temporary until such a time as the budget.
MS. COADY:
I think we will need to
thoroughly review and discuss each of these positions and their merit. I note,
for example, there are only two other provinces with assistant commissioners,
both of them with very significant and large offices. Ontario, for example, I
think have 97 staff and they have an assistant commissioner. Alberta has 48
staff and has an assistant commissioner. I would like, as a new Member of this
committee, to have the opportunity to consider whether or not in our province we
need that position, for example.
I'd
like to suggest we consider postponing any permanent positions until after the
budget, and then we'll get a better sense of how we move forward. If we are to
review then all the three new positions to really delve into each of them.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Are you
putting a motion to the floor now, or did you want to discuss and come back to a
motion?
MS. COADY:
I could put a motion to the
floor now or we can have more discussion, whichever is the wish of the group.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) discuss and come
back to it.
MS. COADY:
We can come back to the
motion.
MS. MICHAEL:
I have a couple of points
first.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
it's important. I think some of us are at an advantage over others here in terms
of having been on the Commission for a while. We benefited from a long in-camera
session with the Commissioner. His submission of all this documentation, as part
of submission 2, is all part of the stuff that we were able to discuss with him
and get a full handle on why we approved the three new – what were new at the
time, or the new infrastructure.
I think
it's important to remind us that a lot of the new infrastructure and the new
positions came about because of the new legislation. There were quite a number
of new responsibilities that were laid on the shoulders of the Commission after
the Commission that studied the privacy and the legislation that we came up
with. I think it was Mr. Wells, who was the Commissioner, laid quite a number of
new responsibilities on them. Those responsibilities also include deadlines, et
cetera, in legislation. They have legislated responsibilities.
So when
we made the decision to approve the new infrastructure, we actually didn't
approve everything that had been put in front of us. I think we were quite
small-C conservative in doing the approval that we did.
I think
it would be good for other Members to feel that they have as good a handle on
that as we do. I actually like what my colleague for St. John's West is saying.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Briefly, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Sir.
I feel
as well it would be important for us to reflect on the importance of the new
legislation and also the important role that the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner plays in ensuring that the necessities of that legislation
are met. I wouldn't want us to take any steps to be disrespectful to the
processes and the requirements under what's still a fairly new piece of
legislation that Justice Wells played a big role in, and also talked at some
length in the importance of ensuring that the legislation is upheld and
processes are upheld.
Having
said that, I do agree with comments from colleagues that making these positions
permanent be deferred until after the budget process so we can have greater
insight from that perspective. At that point in time, as we make the decision, I
would like to hear from Mr. Ring to discuss the roles, responsibilities and the
workloads that exist in his office right now and what the potential impacts
would be if we were to change the support roles or support staff that he has in
his office.
I think
it would be prudent to do it, at least at that point in time, when we come back
to revisit this decision. I believe that's what the motion is to postpone this
and revisit it after the budget. I'm fine with that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
If I'm
understanding correctly – and I'll keep the floor open for other comments – this
would give Members time to review and reflect on the requests by the
Commissioner.
Do any
Members have questions for the Commissioner now, or would we postpone until
after the budget process as well?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I prefer to postpone it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
If I may, Mr. Speaker, while
the Commissioner is here, and he's in the room listening to the conversation, if
there was some issue or matter he may have or believe we may need to consider in
order to consider this motion that's before the floor right now, if there's
something of importance that he could bring, he may raise a flag to say, well,
here's why that process is, okay, it will work for me; or maybe he has some
reason that we're not aware of where there may be a problem created by the
decision we're making. If that's the case, it would be prudent to hear from him
at this point in time.
MR. SPEAKER:
Certainly.
Ms.
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
One of the parts of the
process of our work as the House Management Commission will be the approval of
the various budgets of the statutory offices. That would be part of the budget
process. We don't even have deadlines set up yet for any of that, I don't think.
We haven't been given any deadlines anyway. At that time, we do get an
opportunity to sit with Mr. Ring – just like we do with all other statutory
officers – to go over the budget. I would suspect in the context of discussing
the budget, we can ask him questions about the budget and that would include
what the different roles are.
So all
the more reason for postponing any decision making until after the budget
process, because it would be at that time we would be making permanent
decisions, et cetera – at least permanent for a year's budget.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
Mr.
Davis, is that okay with you or would you still like to ask questions of the
Commissioner?
MR. P. DAVIS:
No, it's fine with me. I
don't see him jumping up and down over there saying there's something pressing
he should bring to our attention. Unless he believes there is. I don't think he
does – oh, there is? There may be something we should –
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Ring, if you wouldn't
mind – so that we can get you on audio and video, and anybody who's viewing from
home would have an opportunity to hear what you have to say as well.
For
Broadcast, Mr. Ring is sitting in the seat for the Member for Ferryland.
Okay,
your light is on. Go ahead.
MR. RING:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I don't
have a whole lot to say today because I see the trend in terms of any proposal.
My main concern here, as I articulated in a short email to the Clerk late last
week, was the fact that under the current situation I have three people that are
going out the door based on their temporary status at the end of March. If that
were to occur, then my office would be incapable of servicing the ATIPPA 2015
based on the 20-plus new rules, responsibilities, duties, functions and services
that are required.
I do
understand the concern raised by a number of the Members here. I am very
sensitive to that. That's why in the first place, and during the previous
opportunities I've had to present to this committee, I've always emphasized the
fact that we understand the fiscal situation of the province. That's why we went
forward with a minimum requirement standard, an absolute bare minimum necessary
to come up and to develop and run an audit program for accessing privacy in the
province to be able to provide the level of enhanced education program that the
new legislation asks for, just to mention a few.
My main
concern is if there could be a decision that will allow the temporary positions
that are in place now to be extended until a decision –
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, that's my
understanding, that the positions would remain temporary until after the budget
process. So that would carry on beyond March 31.
MR. RING:
Okay, and then at a certain
point in time would the Commission then meet? Excuse me – I'm just looking at
process.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, so the motion being
proposed, I believe, and so far agreed to by Members, is that the positions
would remain temporary, would not be filled and we would revisit the decision.
They would remain temporary until after the budget process, which is sometime
presumably in April or thereabouts.
MR. RING:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
So they would carry beyond
March 31.
MR. RING:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
After the budget, the
Commission will then hear your submission, have an opportunity to ask questions
of you and make a final decision on whether or not these positions are permanent
or not.
MR. RING:
Okay, I understand.
MR. SPEAKER:
That's my understanding.
I ask
the Member for St. John's West –
MS. COADY:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
– and the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi: Do we want to put that motion to the floor at this
point?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
The
Member for St. John's West, seconded by the Member for St. John's East – Quidi
Vidi.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Carried.
That
being the last item on the –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
My understanding was both of
those – am I correct – both of those are deferred?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not a
voting Member, but can I ask a question?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, absolutely. Before we
close off we'll give everybody an opportunity to ask questions or speak.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
No, that's fine. I just
wanted to ensure we've closed off Tab 7. Is everybody satisfied with the
decision?
Okay,
carry on.
Lisa
Dempster.
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'm new to the Commission,
obviously. The Commissioner mentioned all of the legislative changes and the
extra work that imposed. I guess I was just wondering for my own purposes: On
average, how many inquires do you receive a day that you deal with?
MR. RING:
It's difficult to answer
that question on a daily basis, but the numbers have increased. In fact, I'll
give you an example. The four regional health authorities alone in the last two
months have had more requests in each of the authorities than they've had in the
entire year last year. It's off the mark.
The
problem is – it's not a problem – reality is that based on the new legislation,
the timelines are much more stringent. For example, when a complaint or a
request for review arrives at my office, we have 65 days from beginning to end
of the process. In some cases there are thousands of records that need to be
reviewed to verify the exceptions that are being claimed by public bodies and so
on.
The
workload has increased substantially and that's just on the access to
information part of it, as opposed to all of the others, the privacy and so on.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other questions or
comments?
AN HON. MEMBER:
No.
MR. SPEAKER:
Alright, meeting adjourned.
Sorry.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion to adjourn by Mr.
Parsons, seconded by Ms. Michael.
Thank
you, folks.
On
motion, meeting adjourned.