May 16, 2018
House of Assembly Management Commission
No. 67
The
Management Commission met at 5:15 p.m. in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
I'd like to welcome everyone to the House of Assembly Management Commission
meeting. Also, I understand we're now live on the broadcast.
First
of all, my name is Perry Trimper. I'm the MHA for Lake Melville and the Chair of
the Management Commission.
I'd
like to ask the other Members of the Management Commission to introduce
themselves. We also have staff and other technical support so I'll turn to my
left.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Paul
Davis, MHA for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, MHA,
Ferryland.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, MHA, St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MR. BROWNE:
Mark Browne, Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, Burgeo - La
Poile.
MS. COADY:
Siobhan Coady, St. John's West.
MR. WARR:
Brian Warr, Baie Verte -
Green Bay.
CLERK (Barnes):
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MS. RUSSELL:
Bobbi Russell, Policy and Communications Officer.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also turn – we have them
miked so I'll ask them to also introduce themselves to my right.
MR. CHAULK:
Bruce Chaulk, Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
MS. HAWLEY GEORGE:
Kim Hawley George, Law Clerk.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
First
of all, I'd like to refer everyone to Tab 1 and the minutes of our last meeting
from April 18. I'm looking for any discussion around the minutes to ensure
they're accurate, and then looking for a motion to approve those minutes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I move to accept the
minutes.
MS. MICHAEL:
I second it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Moved
by MHA Davis; seconded by MHA Michael.
All
those in favour of the previous minutes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
The
motion is carried. The minutes are approved.
On
motion, minutes adopted as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
Over to Tab 2.
Tab 2
refers to amendments to the Members'
Resources and Allowances Rules regarding preparation of the legalization of
cannabis for non-medical purposes. We do have an information note that's been
sent to all the Members of the Commission.
Essentially, it's to prepare in anticipation – perhaps I'll just read some of
the comments that we have received, correspondence from the deputy minister of
Justice and Public Safety regarding amendments which may be required to
legislation administered by the House of Assembly as a result of the
legalization for cannabis.
In
response to this change by the Government of Canada the provincial government
proposes a policy approach which would treat cannabis similar to smoking and/or
alcohol. The staff completed a search of all provincial legislation that
involved the words smoke, drug, alcohol, liquor or tobacco and we've identified
two instances where it's believed we should do an amendment, and it was around
the word alcohol.
The Law
Clerk has drafted a proposed amendment and that would be to our section 46 which
would prohibit Members to having reimbursement of expenses associated with
cannabis. As with alcohol, a Member would not be eligible to seek reimbursement
for provision of cannabis.
We have
text supporting that. There's also a timing piece that this, of course, would
not be implemented until such time that the federal law is in place.
I'll
turn now to the Commission for any discussion.
Any
discussion or comments?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I move we accept it here at
the Commission.
MR. BROWNE:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion has been moved by
MHA Davis; seconded by MHA Browne.
All
those in favour of the motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is approved.
Thank
you very much.
On to
Tab 3, this is a request from the Opposition caucus with regard to leader's
travel allocation. Typically, in the budget for the Official Opposition is an
item of $42,100 for leader's travel. It's not a new budget item and the funds
are already allocated under the budget for 2018-2019. While the funding is
allocated to the leader, it can be utilized by caucus Members and caucus staff
to travel when authorized by the leader.
As Mr.
Ches Crosbie is the Leader of the Progressive Conservative caucus effective
April 28, he's effectively the leader of the Official Opposition caucus.
However, as Mr. Crosbie is a non-elected Member, resources cannot be provided to
him. When a leader of the caucus is unelected, mechanisms need to be found to
allow the caucus to operate.
On a
point of correction, since this briefing note was written, of course, it's now
been recognized that Mr. Dave Brazil is now the parliamentary leader and
administrative leader of the Official Opposition. Prior, it had been indicated
as Mr. Paul Davis.
A
request was sent to myself on April 30 from the Official Opposition caucus
requesting the House of Assembly Management Commission to consider a policy
change that would allow Members of the caucus and staff to access this funding.
The proposed motion is that the Commission approves access to the leader's
travel fund of $42,100 under the Official Opposition caucus for Members of the
caucus and staff as delegated by the Member designated as the leader of the
Official Opposition caucus for administrative purposes.
I look
for any discussion.
MHA
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As you
have described, and as the request outlines, this is in particular to the
current situation of the Parliament here in regard to the appointment of the
leader of the Opposition. Obviously, the Loyal Opposition is the party with the
second most seats in the Legislature. The leader of that party, as you
indicated, is not elected and doesn't have a seat here in the Legislature. In
the past, the activities of Opposition for the leader and for critic roles, in
order to meet their obligations regarding being in Opposition, would have access
to some of this travel and support that and support their activities.
With
the changes and what you've described where we have a party leader, and also
have appointed caucus leader here in the Parliament, that's not accessible under
the current rules. Basically, we're looking for, from our caucus, a request for
the Management Commission to consider that funding would be made available to
the caucus of the Official Opposition.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further discussions?
MHA
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I could just ask a
question here of the third point of the briefing note. It says that Mr. Crosbie
is effectively the leader of the Official Opposition caucus. Wouldn't it be
correct to say that Mr. Crosbie is the Leader of the PC Party?
He's
not the leader of the Official Opposition caucus. That is Mr. Brazil, I
understand.
MR. SPEAKER:
I look to the Law Clerk for
a comment.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We can't say effectively the
leader if that is not the case.
CLERK:
This is one of these
situations where the whole Westminster system is premised on the leader being
elected, and then you're left to make it work when that's not the case. We're
certainly not the first jurisdiction to have that. What we have different is the
legislated framework with the House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.
Essentially, the leader of the Official Opposition is the leader of the party
with the second greatest number of seats in a Parliament. Essentially, what
happens is that while he's the leader of the Official Opposition for
parliamentary purposes, you need to designate somebody. Essentially they become
the acting leader of Opposition. Right now, Mr. Brazil is acting as leader of
the Official Opposition from both the parliamentary and the administrative
because of our act purposes. Green doesn't contemplate anybody in an acting
role. If I'm making myself clear.
So
where Mr. Crosbie doesn't – he is not a public official because you either have
to be elected or an employee to be a public official, signing authority, their
entire – like their staffing, everything, has to be with an elected Member and
because the act doesn't allow for leader or acting leader, we're in a bit of a
bind in that Mr. Brazil can't sign any of the travel.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Is this the first time it's
ever happened?
CLERK:
Since Green? It happened
with the Third Party caucus.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Did it not happen with –
MR. SPEAKER:
You need to be identified.
MHA
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think at one point Kevin
Aylward might have been leader of the Liberal –
CLERK:
Oh, at one point Jim Bennett
was leader of the Opposition. At another point Danny Williams was the leader of
the Opposition. Ed Byrne was the acting leader. That all happened pre-Green.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Not Kevin Aylward.
CLERK:
I don't about Mr. Aylward,
but we have had many circumstances where the leader hasn't been elected.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm going to go to MHA
Michael, please.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We were
post-Green, and obviously it was when Earle McCurdy was our leader.
CLERK:
Yes, right.
MS. MICHAEL:
And Earle was in that
position for two-and-a-half years.
CLERK:
Mm-hmm.
MS. MICHAEL:
And not one cent, of course,
went to Earle. Our leader's travel money was not used while he was there. Our
party paid for all his travel, et cetera. He was the leader of the party.
I was
House Leader. Now, I know we weren't the Official Opposition but we are a party
in the House. I was House Leader, so I couldn't access that travel money either.
Any travel I did, I had to do it under my constituency.
So I
find this rather confusing. I have a question about the first option. Where it
says: “Approve the request from the Official Opposition Caucus to utilize
the funding allocated for the Leader's travel to allow caucus members and staff
to travel on behalf of the Leader.” I'm assuming that means on behalf of Mr.
Crosbie?
CLERK: Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, for me that's really problematic.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Clerk, Sandra Barnes.
CLERK: If I
may, Ms. Michael.
You're correct. Mr. Crosbie is not able to access any
funding, okay. But, as you're aware, the
travel allocation to the Leader is quite often used by other caucus Members and
staff. It's a case where, when the caucus funding allocations were set up, the
travel was attached to the Leader, not to the caucus, but it's always been used
by all the staff and the caucus. It's just it requires the Leader's signature
and nobody else's signature, the way it established it.
It's
not unlike – it was set up to parallel the allocation in the minister's office
for ministerial travel, it can only be accessed by the minister. The difference
in a department is, if for some reason it's not being accessed, they can go
under transfer of funds policy and have it transferred into another – they can
ask for a transfer of funds, but we can't do that, okay? I'm just trying to draw
the –
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Hutchings, next.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As you
know, we've had some discussion with staff in the House in regard to this
circumstance, in particular, too, the fact that our party holds the second most
seats in the Legislature, so therefore we've been designated the official loyal
Opposition.
The
Leader of the party is not an elected official, as we know. Within caucus, we
have designated someone now to be the leader of the Official Opposition and that
person would carry out the duties and activities of that title. What I've
argued, I guess, is the funding and resources for that, in the parliamentary
setting, is tied to that position and who sits in it.
What's
been ruled on this, and I respect the ruling and what the House has said, is
that – I don't agree with it – this person doesn't get the funding and resources
because there's somebody outside who's the leader of a party but yet is not
elected here in the House.
From
that, what we're dealing with here is that to carry out the functions of
Opposition, caucus at least needs the ability to entertain activities and
functions that are related to their roles as critic in Opposition. I'll state
for record, I'm still a bit confused about the whole issue of pre- and
post-Green.
My
understanding is – what I had read – Green is almost silent on the issue of the
situation where you have an elected party leader that's outside and you have
that same party Members who are sitting in the Legislature, have the second-most
seats in the Legislature and therefore are designated as the Official
Opposition, and if that group designates someone who is elected as the Official
Opposition Leader, why those resources are not tied to him, I guess we've had
that discussion, but the decision is under precedent or under parliament, it's
not to be done.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I was suggesting is
this is not an unprecedented situation. It's happened in the Official Opposition
before. It's happened in the Third Party and there was no policy change made
then as is being suggested now. I'm not sure why we would need to make a change.
I
recall once where a non-elected leader couldn't get an office upstairs. I know
Ms. Michael said the same thing, this is not an unprecedented situation. This
has happened. I don't know why we would require a change to the rule now to
allow taxpayers money to be spent differently than is –
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, I have a problem with
the thing on behalf of the leader. The leader is the leader of the party. The
Leader, at this moment, is not elected, just like we have for two-and-a-half
years. I do not see the caucus, whether its Members or staff, officially
representing the leader as caucus. They're there. They were elected. They're
hired and they're there as Members and have staff doing their work and they are
not doing anything on behalf of the leader of the party. I have a real problem
with this.
It's
extremely problematic because I agree with Mr. Parsons that when our Leader
didn't get elected, we had to suck it up and we did suck it up. Believe me, it
was sucking it up because we paid his salary, we paid his travel, everything
because he did not have – while he worked with us in the caucus and he was very
happy to have an office. He didn't have a government email address or anything,
we all worked together, but he had no rights relating to the caucus. He was the
Leader of our party.
It
wouldn't even have come to me to ask for this kind of thing to happen. It's not
because we didn't get it that I'm saying it, I just think it's really
problematic because it's the responsibility of the party. It's their Leader. It
was our Leader and we took care of our Leader. It wasn't his fault he didn't get
elected. He worked hard for it, he didn't get elected, but it was the party's
responsibility.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MHA
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I think I'll provide a
little clarity.
It's
not our intention to suggest that an unelected individual would have access to
any funds in the House of Assembly. We see an unelected official has no tie or
access to the resources of the House of Assembly. That's not what this is
asking.
This is
saying because of the circumstance where you're telling us that the leader
resourcing because he's a leader of a party who's not elected is not being – the
person that we appointed to be the Official Opposition and sits in that seat is
not entitled to any resourcing at all.
What
we're asking for is that in the past the Official Leader of the Opposition, when
it was elected and that person was elected, there was a travel budget that could
be used by that leader and could be used by Members of that caucus who are the
Official Opposition to meet their obligations and duties as the Official
Opposition.
What
this asks for is that 42 – whatever the figure is – would be allocated to that
current Member and caucus to carry out their functions of the elected officials
as the Opposition. It has nothing to do with doing any duties or providing any
services or resources to an unelected Member that now sits as leader of a
particular party in the province.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I have to respectfully
disagree with my colleague, Mr. Hutchings. I think this is exactly what this is
and I don't see the need for the change for the policy here. We've seen previous
situations like this where we did not change policy.
What we
have is a leader of the party here. In order to become a Member of the House
here, there are options that parties can take to allow that. We've seen that in
the past where Members have given up seats to allow somebody else to run in
their place. We've seen it here in this House before.
I would
suggest that would be the best way to make the change there that's necessary,
but making a policy change here on this is certainly not something I think I can
be supportive of.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm a Member of this House of Assembly, have been for many years now
and until April 28, I was the leader of the Opposition and also leader of the PC
Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. On April 28, our party chose a new Leader
but I remained the leader of the Opposition until this week, when I passed the
reigns over to or our caucus chose Mr. Brazil to take over that function.
With
all respect to staff, the options laid out here, I honestly believe do not
reflect what we actually requested. The request from the Official Opposition
reads as follows: Dear Management Commission, “As Members of the Official
Opposition Caucus in the House of Assembly, we write to request that the funding
provided for the travel of the Leader of the Official Opposition be transferred
to the Official Opposition Caucus Fund.” Official Opposition caucus fund is for
the use of caucus Members, caucus Members only.
We have
many occasions in the past, when I was leader, up until April 28, have
designated the use of those funds for travel by caucus Members, to travel I
think only within the province to attend meetings or functions, or to attend and
represent the Official Opposition at gatherings of municipal councils or
stakeholder groups or what have you. That's where that fund comes from.
We
haven't asked what Option 1 says: to allow the travel on behalf of the leader.
Not the leader of party. We've asked that the funds be transferred to the
Official Opposition caucus fund so it can continue to be used by elected Members
as it has up until April 28.
With
all due respect to Ms. Michael's comments and what they chose to do with their
unelected leader of their party, that was a decision they made. They could have
come to this Management Commission and asked for the funds that were allotted to
their Opposition or Third Party status in the House. What was allotted to them,
they could have asked for the same thing. They choose not to do that. That was a
decision they made.
We're
not asking for funds to be allotted for the travel of Mr. Crosbie, the Leader of
the PC Party. We're asking for the funds so that we can continue to do our work
effectively as elected Members of the Official Opposition. That was the request
that we made on April 30, which I don't think is fairly –
MR. SPEAKER:
Reflected.
MR. P. DAVIS:
– articulated in the options
that have been circulated by the House.
MR. SPEAKER:
I am going to look to the
Clerk just for any guidance on this.
MHA
Davis is arguing the option we've presented to the Management Commission does
not accurately reflect their request. Can we make that adjustment here or do we
need to go back and bring it back before the Commission?
CLERK:
I understand your argument.
When we look at it, it's exactly the same. Funding for the Official Opposition
caucus is voted in that particular activity and the leader's funding is under
the Travel and Communications budget.
The
money is there, the only issue is you can't access it. The money is already in
the caucus budget, it's just access to it that policy prevents, okay? It's
probably splitting hairs to be quite honest.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll go after.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to
the comment by the Clerk, it's still the same funds that would be accessed by
elected Members of the House of Assembly to do their job as an Opposition. The
detriment is – if the Management Commission decides not to approve this transfer
– that the seven Members of the Official Opposition will no longer have access
to those funds to travel the province to attend such things as municipalities
conventions, or gatherings of Labrador leaders, as an example, or to attend
districts around the province where there are gatherings of people who have
matters of interest they want brought to the House of Assembly.
If the
funding is not allowed for Members of the Official Opposition caucus to travel,
then we will be restricted from doing our jobs as Members of the House of
Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm going over to MHA Coady
first and then MHA Michael.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
want to weigh in and I wasn't planning to. I do want to weigh in because I think
this is a little complicated. I just listened to my colleague, Mr. Davis, say
they wouldn't be able to travel; they wouldn't be able to do any of their normal
duties, which I believe to be incorrect.
This is
the vote for the caucus funds and the vote for the leader of a party fund;
they're two pots of money. What I understand we're trying to do is move the pot
of money for the leader into the caucus funds.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll go to the Clerk for a
comment.
CLERK:
No, there's one activity: Official Opposition caucus. The funding for the leader
is voted in Travel and Communications, like all travel funding under the
Official Opposition caucus.
The
issue is because Mr. Brazil is really acting leader and it requires the leader's
signature then they can't access it. The only way that any of those funds are
accessed is under the signature of the leader.
Members
can travel on their I & E, but it has to be related to their constituency. For
example, if a caucus Member was going to go to a budget consultation in an area
of the province that none of the caucus represents, then the funding would come
from that caucus travel amount, but it's authorized by the leader.
I know
it's –
MR. SPEAKER:
Cumbersome.
CLERK:
– cumbersome, but we're bound by the financial and administration policies.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I have two questions; it
goes back to what I asked before. When the Clerk says authorized by the leader,
I remember that when Earle was leader, I maintained the signature because it had
to be an elected person.
CLERK:
That's right.
MS. MICHAEL:
So I maintained the
signature.
CLERK:
The way Mr. Brazil does.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
So now
Brazil has that.
CLERK:
That's right.
MS. MICHAEL:
So he can authorize that
travel money for the leader then?
CLERK:
No, you couldn't do it
because Mr. McCurdy was the leader. Mr. Brazil is effectively the acting leader
of the Official Opposition –
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
CLERK:
– because the leader of the
party is unelected.
MS. MICHAEL:
But if he's the signer,
which he is –
CLERK:
He does (inaudible).
MS. MICHAEL:
– and he's the acting
leader, can't he, under his signature, access some of that money for caucus if
they see there's somebody they really want to go to something?
CLERK:
It needs to be approved by
the Management Commission, because the Green act doesn't make any provision for
acting capacity. That's the problem we've got.
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, if I may continue
speaking.
MR. SPEAKER:
Please.
MS. MICHAEL:
To me, that would be
different and it's something that could be considered. But if we're going to say
that this can happen as is being requested, that the travel money just go into
this caucus fund, then I think we're talking about a policy change for
everybody. That should be for the three caucuses, not just for the Official
Opposition – if that change were to be made.
But if
Mr. Brazil has the power as the leader of the Opposition here in the Assembly
and it's his signature and he has that power to do that, to designate somebody
to go to a meeting or himself to go to a meeting, then I don't understand this
request.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Does he have the authority?
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, I'm asking that
question: Does he have the authority?
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm looking for further
comment from anyone.
We will
go to the Law Clerk, please. Kim Hawley George.
MS. HAWLEY GEORGE:
I know it's complicated, and I appreciate that, but the way that I understand
the request is consistent again with the fact that there's no provision in Green
for an acting leader or any acting person, because the entire act contemplates
somebody being elected. So everybody has to be a Member, that's the idea. I
understand that the leader, previously, as Mr. Davis has said, authorized other
caucus Members to travel in that context. So I think all this request is and
what I understand the request to be is the caucus is asking that Mr. Brazil be
that person authorized to allow that.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to
Ms. Hawley George's comment, the only thing different before April 28 and
post-28 was our party, which is not recognized here in the House, changed the
leader. So when we spoke to the House of Assembly and officials, we had a number
of discussions about what changes in the House, and one of the matters that was
brought to our attention through the House of Assembly was that we would not be
able to access the leader's fund and the process we're following is in
consultation with officials in the House of Assembly.
I just
want to reiterate two points if I may, Mr. Speaker. One is we're not requesting
the funds be utilized for an unelected Member or an unelected leader. We're not
asking for that. We're asking that the funds be allowed to be used for travel by
Members, the seven Members of the caucus who existed before April 28 and exist
today after April 28. We're requesting that so we can do our job as the Official
Opposition when need be.
The
example used by the Clerk, I think, is a very valid one on budget consultations.
Every budget consultation in the province, we had someone there, with the
exception of one, which was in Labrador which had been postponed a couple of
times and then when it was finally held, we couldn't attend. The rest of the
budget consultations, we had a Member of our caucus in attendance. Under our
intra-extra constituency travel, we would not be able to attend those meetings,
very important pre-budget consultations if we didn't have this fund.
So our
request is in keeping with the advice from the House of Assembly officials. If
we're not permitted to access these funds, we're going to be restricted and
obstructed from doing our own jobs that we're elected to do as an Opposition.
MR. SPEAKER:
Before I go to Ms. Michael,
I would like to remind the Members of the Commission that the proposed motion is
the following: The Commission approves access to the leader's travel fund of
$42,100 under the Official Opposition caucus for Members of the caucus and
staff, as delegated by the Member designated as leader of the Official
Opposition caucus for administrative purposes.
MHA
Michael, do you still want to speak?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
Where
is that here? Because the option is not reading that way. We don't have that
here in the note. I don't think it is legislative but if it is, then that would
be complicated. If we were talking about saying that when there is a leader in
the Assembly who is in place of the non-elected leader, I believe that person,
if designated so, should have the signing authority to use that money. I mean,
it just makes sense to me. I have a problem with the moving of the money totally
over. I think it should be under the leader who's the designated leader to
approve or not approve how that money is spent.
I did
that when I was leader. My assistant always came with me. My assistant was
always paid out of the leader's travel. Times if I couldn't go somewhere,
somebody else could go and I understand all that, but I have a problem – unless
we do it for all three caucuses and make a change to how we're keeping the books
– with just making this move.
I
wouldn't have a problem saying let's make a change – let's broaden what Green
said because Green didn't think of this circumstance.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
A couple things.
I'm
getting quite confused here because my understanding was that Mr. Brazil is the
parliamentary leader of the Official Opposition. We've seen situations in the
past; in fact, in 2013, where the leader of the Official Opposition stepped down
during a leadership contest and Mr. Joyce took over as the leader and had
signing authority.
The
second part is – and I can put a motion forward to this effect – the request
that came in, we're having a debate over whether the request that came in and
the work that's done – we got this book 48 hours ago and we're hearing now at
the meeting that there may be some difference as to what should be going on
here.
I'm not
prepared to entertain any motion right now where there's obviously some
confusion that still exists out there. We're talking about changing Green based
on – sorry, I can put a motion forward that if they want to defer this, that's
fine, but otherwise, I'll be putting forward a motion not to accept.
CLERK:
If I may.
There
are no funds that need to be transferred anywhere. There is $42,100 in the
Travel and Communications vote under the Opposition caucus. So the funds are
there. The issue is who can sign to access them. That's the issue. There's no
transfer needed. The funds are where they need to be.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
No, it doesn't.
CLERK:
No, it doesn't.
MR. SPEAKER:
Clerk, you can continue.
Anything else further?
CLERK:
No, I just want to be clear.
There's no transfer needed. The funds are there, the same way they're in the
Third Party. The government Members doesn't have funding for the leader because,
of course, the Premier is the Leader and all those funds are voted in the
Executive Branch.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
There
is clearly some confusion around this issue as to what the request is and what's
the precedence. I always look back at the Management Commission and we've done a
lot of work on making sure that we're consistent in the application of the
rules.
What
was done previously is done in the future so that we have consistency and
there's no favouritism. There's no change. The rules are applied across the
board. I've heard today that two other leaders who were outside the Legislature
didn't have access to these funds but it might have been on the designated
signature.
I think
we need some clarity around exactly how the rules were applied in the past,
because I'm hearing from MHA Michael that she had signing authority, not for
someone outside the Legislature but certainly for her own team. I'm hearing that
may be applied differently in this circumstance, I'm not sure about previous.
So I'd
like to have some clarity on what the precedence has been in the application of
the rules previously.
CLERK:
May I?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, please. Of course, yes.
CLERK:
Since Green came in we've only had one situation where the leader has not been
elected and that was the situation when Mr. McCurdy was the leader of the NDP.
That's since Green.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CLERK:
After the general election.
MS. MICHAEL:
He replaced Yvonne Jones.
MR. A. PARSONS:
He replaced Yvonne that
summer.
CLERK:
He replaced Yvonne that summer, okay.
Well,
in that case, I'll have to go back and look at that because the legal opinion we
have goes back to February 2015, which would have been just before Mr. McCurdy
was elected.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm going to take some
leadership as a Chair.
CLERK:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think I'm going to ask to
seek the co-operation of the Commission to defer any further decision on this,
allow us to come back to the Members with some direction consistent with what I
heard.
MHA
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
When will that be –?
MR. SPEAKER:
We're going to have to take
to this immediately. I see it as a priority, so we'll come back.
Okay.
CLERK:
We will check that out.
MR. SPEAKER:
All right.
If I
could ask the Members then, please, to turn to Tab 4.
CLERK:
Put in a motion to defer?
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm sorry. Yes, I do need to
seek a motion to defer.
MS. MICHAEL:
So moved.
MR. BROWNE:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
So moved by Ms. Michael,
seconded by MHA Browne.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Okay.
Thank you very much. We will come back as quickly as possible.
Tab 4,
the item is entitled Harassment-Free Workplace Policy for Legislature & Code of
Conduct. I'm going to read through a few key points, if I may, and then open it
up for questioning.
Essentially, the Briefing Note that is provided to the Members and is available
now to the public, it outlines the various legislative and policy provisions
with respect to behaviour currently in place where Members of the House of
Assembly, as well as employees of the House of Assembly service and staff
offices, constituency assistants and political support staff in caucus offices.
As
announced by the Executive Branch, a new Harassment-Free Workplace Policy for
departmental employees will come into effect on the 1st of June this year.
On the
2nd of May, this House of Assembly did pass a private Member's motion which
assigned responsibility to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections
for the development of a Legislature-specific harassment policy. That entity has
begun its work. As the parliamentary procedure dictates, passage of the motion
constitutes an order of the House. So, as I say, it has started. Once its work
is completed, this Committee will bring back its recommendations to the House
for debate and a decision via a vote.
On the
3rd of May, I received a letter from the House Leader for the Official
Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party asking that a meeting of this
Management Commission be convened to discuss matters of harassment and
intimidation and applicable policies and processes to address such allegations.
While
policy matters related to the Legislature are typically under the mandate of the
Management Commission, the PMR, from just two weeks ago today, approved
unanimously in the House on May 2 does assign the responsibility for developing
a Legislature-specific harassment policy to the Standing Committee on Privileges
and Elections.
In
terms of Impending Implementation of the Executive Branch policy; given this is
coming into effect on the 1st of June and whether or not this should apply to
elected Members, the Briefing Note outlines various implications and
considerations for the application of this policy to the Members of this House
of Assembly, including that it does not take into account the employment nature
of elected officials, or that in application to elected officials the policy
must co-exist with the provisions of the legislated Code of Conduct.
Basically, what that's saying is the principles can apply but the implementation
as to how that harassment policy, which is how it would apply for elected
officials, needs work. There are several aspects to it that would need to be
considered, and an initial analysis has been provided, there would be
significant work to do.
The
Management Commission could – we could decide here – direct interim application
of this Harassment-Free Workplace Policy – that will come into effect in a
little over two weeks, the 1st of June – with the adjustments identified in
Attachment 3. This would be such time until the House deals with the results,
the recommendations from the Privileges and Elections Committee.
If this
is what we decide to do, complaints related to harassment against Members could
have the option of being addressed under the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy,
that we would accommodate, or the Code of Conduct, or both.
As I
say, the new Harassment-Free Workplace Policy of the Executive Branch will
automatically apply to all employees – that includes the political staff that
support us and the public service employees that work with us – of this
Legislature, unless the Management Commission implements a Legislature-specific
policy.
Should
the House approve a policy affecting employees as a result of the
recommendations of the Privileges and Elections Committee, these policy
provisions will apply at that time.
So, if
I may, we have a couple of options before us. One is we could direct an interim
application of the Executive Branch Harassment-Free Workplace Policy, that will
come into effect on the 1st of June, using equivalent processes as outlined in
Attachment 2, in situations involving Members of this House of Assembly. The
interim application will continue until such time as the House votes on the
recommendations from the Privileges and Elections Committee.
It'll
be sort of a stop-gap; it would be an accommodation until such time that the
process that we started two weeks ago concludes its work and we've dealt with it
here.
Or, we
could continue with the Code of Conduct provisions – and I brought them along,
this is what we all swore an oath to in this room back on the 18th of December
in 2015. We could continue with the Code of Conduct provisions for Members and
the Executive Branch Harassment-Free Workplace Policy for employees until such
time as the Privileges and Elections Committee has completed its work.
MHA
Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for the clarifications and the opportunity to speak today. I think it goes
without saying, but I'll say it anyway: threats, intimidation, harassment,
really violence of any kind, have no place in any workplace, in any home and in
our society. We have a responsibility, I think, to beset the tone. As leaders in
our communities, we have to set the right tone and the right model.
I'd
like to speak to the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Assembly. For
those listening in, I'd like to just use a little preamble from that Code of
Conduct: the Code is the standard by which all Members agree to govern
themselves in carrying out their responsibilities as elected officials as part
of the Oath of Office, to which you referenced, Mr. Speaker, all Members agree
to follow this Code of Conduct before being permitted to take their seats. So
everyone here in this House has to swear an oath of allegiance to the Code of
Conduct.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions, I guess, about your preamble and about the
recommendation here. The Code of Conduct is the foundation by which we must
conduct ourselves in our business of serving the people of this province.
Nowhere have we really addressed the modernization of that Code of Conduct.
When I
look at the Code of Conduct, and I have been through it thoroughly, it does need
some modernization. The word harassment doesn't even appear, Mr. Speaker. It
does, under number 10, talk about relationship between Members and government
employees should be professional and based upon mutual respect. So it does
allude to it, but it is not explicit. So, I believe, Mr. Speaker, we really do
need to modernize, update and improve upon the Code of Conduct.
I think
we're at a tipping point in our society as more people recognize bad behaviour
is not acceptable; it never has been, but recognizing how important it is that
we conduct ourselves in a professional manner in all of our dealings with human
beings – interpersonal dealings.
So
that's my first question: What mechanism do we, as a Management Commission, have
to modernize, update and improve upon the Code of Conduct? So I'll park that,
and I do have a second question, so it'll come to that.
We do
have a mechanism now as part of the private Member's resolution. I supported it,
all Members of the House supported the resolution of sending it to the
Committee, the Privileges and Elections Committee, to which it belonged under
Green and belongs today, and getting their work done is very important, but I'm
wondering about the mechanisms.
So
we've sent it to the Privileges and Elections Committee, but what's the time
frame for them to report? Do they have any time frames? Is there anyone
considering that? How does the Management Commission get updates on any progress
because there are a lot of things that I'm sure we'd all like to consider under
the development of a harassment policy?
So how
is the mechanism, is the question, of the Privileges and Elections Committee –
what is that? Does it come back to the Management Commission? Does it come back
to the House as a whole so that we can make an informed decision?
To me,
the foundation of all this is on that Code of Conduct. We can have a great
harassment policy, but if we're not, as elected officials, conducting ourselves
in a manner that is professional and courteous to one another, then we should,
we must ensure that we do and the only mechanism that we have to be able to do
that is through the Code of Conduct. That's the first foundational piece of
ensuring that we all recognize that it's important that we do so.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Absolutely, and I would add
that when you look across the country, this is only legislated Code of Conduct
that exists in Canada. So as a result of Green and all that went on there and
the recommendations of Justice Green, the Privileges and Elections Committee
undertook to develop a Code of Conduct, as directed, that's what I have here
beside me, that's what we all swore to. While certain words may not be there,
and as you say, some modernization may be needed, I believe that the intent of
the behaviour and so on is very clear. It's very clear in this document and the
seriousness of it, and so on, I think is also a very solemn oath that I believe
we need to remember and take responsibly.
In
terms of the process that is started now with the Privileges and Elections
Committee, they're looking at a policy.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Of harassment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Of dealing with
anti-harassment and so on.
Wherever you look at situations of policy and legislation – I don't like to use
the word trump – but in this situation the fact of the matter is the Code of
Conduct is a legislative matter so it trumps the policy. So regardless of what's
out there and what's happening right now, that Code of Conduct is a standard to
which we need to all be very accountable to and adhere.
The
work that's going to be undertaken by the Privileges and Elections Committee
will review the policy, as the Executive has laid it out; work to see how we can
bring it in to our own world of elected officials, but because of the
relationship to the Code of Conduct, it will also inform that Committee's
activities. They will need to come back to this House with recommendations on
whatever changes to the Code would also need to be done.
Am I
correct, as I look to my team?
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll ask the Clerk to
perhaps add and then I'll go back to you.
Clerk,
please.
CLERK:
I hate to use the word
consequential amendments, but it's kind of similar to that and in doing the work
on any policy, they would have to look at the Code of Conduct. The House can
give specific direction to the Committee.
MS. COADY:
The House Management
Commission?
MR. SPEAKER:
No, the House of Assembly.
CLERK:
Well, the House – the only
way – there are only two ways, either a private Member's resolution could come
in, the same way the last one did giving an order, or the Management Commission
could ask the Government House Leader to bring forward a resolution with
whatever contact, directing the Privileges and Elections Committee to review the
Code of Conduct or imposing or asking for a timeline, that sort of thing,
because it's the House that gives the direction to its Committees.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MHA
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
didn't read through it yet, but I have carefully studied, more than once, the –
what's the word I want – graph that has been done, where we have three columns
there and one deals with the Executive Council policy for the public service
sector, the middle one is the Executive Council policy for the legislative staff
and employees including constituency assistants et cetera and then the third one
is a possible way to go if we choose the interim.
I'd
like to speak to that because I do think we need an interim application. My
concern would be that tonight we may not be able to totally approve the process
that's here, because I have a lot of questions about the process in the third
column.
We are
dealing with a real situation in the province right now. We're here doing this
because of things that have happened – I can't say in the Legislature because it
didn't happen in the Legislature but has happened in the whole Assembly. The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards for the first time is dealing with
something that, publicly anyway, we have not seen dealt with before.
One of
the questions that is coming up, and I'm getting it outside of the House, and
I'm sure you've heard it publicly as well: What process is the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards using? What I like in what has been outlined is that there
is a process there.
It
would seem to me that in the interim, barring no other complaints of this
nature, and we have a current situation, I think we do need to have an interim
process in place because of the fact that number one, people are questioning
right now the situation, and if somebody else – I know there are some people who
have even said publicly that they are hesitating to bring forward a complaint
because they don't know what the process is going to be.
I think
it's really important that we have something as an interim. The Executive
Council policy – the content of that – is excellent. We would have to make sure
we were satisfied with the interim process that we would put in place dealing
with MHAs. I think it's necessary. Like I said, I'm not sure that tonight I
would be ready to approve every single word in the draft that's been presented
to us, but I think we have an obligation to put something in place in the
interim. I really believe that.
MR. SPEAKER:
So I guess might speak, if I
could, take my situation as the Chair.
But in
terms of putting in a process, if there is a harassment complaint now the
process is established, it's outlined. The gentleman, the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards, is here now with us. There are different ways that he can
be activated to pursue that allegation. He can do it on himself, the House can
make a recommendation, a Member can go to him and say I've got an issue or the
Premier can make a referral.
He is
functioning under that context now. His office has dealt with three such
referrals in recent time. That is there. In addition to that process and so on,
Executive has decided to implement a policy, specifically as you may say
modernizing around anti-harassment and so on. We've also now embarked on the
Privileges and Elections Committee to look at that policy, to come back to this
House and provide recommendations.
Anyway,
perhaps I'm showing my cards. But I really feel that right now we have a process
in place and I feel we should allow the committee to do its work, but anyway.
MS. MICHAEL:
May I respond to that?
MR. SPEAKER:
Sure. And then I'll go to MHA Davis.
MHA
Michael, please.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, thank you.
My
response is that in this draft that was sent to us, to be part of this
afternoon's discussion, in the third column we have the equivalent process for
MHAs. And with all due respect, what you've just outlined, the general public
doesn't know all that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mm-hmm.
MS. MICHAEL:
But what's outlined here is now public and anything we decide on would be
publicly out there for people to see.
So the
complaint gets submitted to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. So if
somebody has a complaint, they submit it to the Commissioner. The Commissioner
assesses to determine if the complaint falls within scope of policy. The
Commissioner acknowledges the complaint and schedules a meeting with the
complainant to review the possible options of resolution. The Commissioner
follows up with written communication to the complainant reiterating the
resolution options and confirms selected option.
I mean
all of these details here are excellent but the general public doesn't know that
this process is here, even coming down to the report – the Commissioner will
provide a report to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Elections, and the
Privileges and Elections Committee would review the report and decide on what
recommendations would go forward to the House of Assembly.
I mean,
all of that is important information, and if we approve that – and some of it is
in process now. I know that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mm-hmm.
MS. MICHAEL:
But it's not lined out like this. People do not know this, and that's what I'm
concerned about, is people understanding. If we say yes to what's been outlined
here, then we have an interim process that's recognized publicly.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
From my
perspective, I think we may be a little ahead of ourselves, because Ms. Michael
just made a very valid point that the public who, I'm sure, are watching some of
this tonight, may not fully understand and appreciate how we land up to where we
are.
I'd
like to acknowledge as well that Mr. Chaulk's joined us tonight, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards, who, on the request of the Premier, has
been asked to look into certain matters that we at this point in time are not
clear what they are. I intend to ask some questions of the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards, Mr. Chaulk, while he's here tonight.
But
first of all I'd just like to make some comments from a little bit of a
background perspective. Justice Green wrote his report in 2007 and the report
substantially deals with matters of financial management or financial
mismanagement, use of constituency funds that existed at the time and so on. His
report reflects that. As has been stated by some of my colleagues earlier, his
report and the Code of Conduct, they don't deal with matters of harassment or
bullying or intimidation and so on in the workplace, which is a very prevalent
discussion in today's society, and I'd suggest back in 2007 it wasn't as
prevalent as it is today.
We have
two options here that are presented in our documents provided to us, our
binders; but, in all respect, options here are recommendations and we could have
any motion, I would suggest, from the floor of the Management Commission here
tonight or subsequent to today. We've got three members of this House who in one
way or another have indicated that they do not support the process that's
available to them today. Three members who've spoken out. And one of the primary
considerations, when it comes to any matter of workplace harassment or
respectful workplace, or harassment-free workplace, is to ensure that there's a
process available to those who feel that they've not been treated appropriately
and properly, and that there's a process available.
The
process we have available today, under Justice Green, which was written about I
suggest primarily financial matters, does give four ways for the Commissioner
for Legislative Standards to conduct an investigation. Under section 36 of the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act
– which we sometimes refer to as the Green act – a member of the House who has
reasonable grounds to believe that another member is in contravention of the
Code of Conduct, which has been referenced earlier, may request an
investigation.
The second way is
that the Commissioner, on his or her own initiative,
may conduct an inquiry to
determine whether a Member has failed to fulfill obligations under the Code of
Conduct, where in the opinion of the Commissioner it's in the public interest to
do so.
The
third way that an investigation could be launched is through a resolution of the
House of Assembly, which would mean that it'd be a debate here in the House, a
resolution, and direction would be given. The fourth way is when the Premier may
request the Commissioner give an opinion on a matter respecting the compliance
of a Member with the Code of Conduct.
Based
on a statement issued by the Premier as well as a statement issued by the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards on May 2, where it said the Commissioner
for Legislative Standards, on request of the Premier, will conduct two separate
investigations into the conduct of MHA Joyce and MHA Kirby. Later in the release
dated May 2, it indicates the report, once completed, will be submitted to the
Premier and to the complainants. The Commissioner for Legislative Standards has
the statutory responsibility to ensure the Members of the House of Assembly
uphold the ethical standards outlined in their Code of Conduct.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important to understand and to look a little bit
deeper into those processes. Under section 38 of the same act, the
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, it lays out under section 38,
and I quote: “Where a request for an opinion is made under subsection 36 (1) or
(3),” – which is when an MHA requests or the House does it on resolution – “or
where the commissioner conducts an inquiry under subsection 36 (2),” – so that's
where the Commissioner on his own initiative – “he or she” – being the
Commissioner – “shall report his or her opinion to the commission” – being this
Commission, the Management Commission – “which shall present the report to the
House of Assembly within 15 sitting days of receiving it if it is in session or,
if not, within 15 days of the beginning of the next session.”
So
that's three of the four circumstances where the MHA requests it, the
Commissioner does it on his own initiative, his or her own initiative – in this
case his – the House does it by a resolution. The fourth one is where the
Premier requests. And under section 38(2), “where the request for an opinion is
made under subsection 36 (4), the commissioner shall report his or her opinion
to the Premier and the member concerned.”
So, Mr.
Speaker, under that particular provision, the report does not come to the
Management Commission. It goes to the Premier and Members concerned. Just this
very day in the House of Assembly in Question Period the Premier was asked if he
was going to make the report public and his commentary – and I'm just going by
memory here – was that he would do everything he can to release what he could
potentially release publicly was his intention, was commentary to that effect.
And I respect his answer.
However, what's most important here as well – or I shouldn't say most important,
but very important here as well – is to read further into Green. Are there
further implications to the outcomes? There are, Mr. Speaker.
Under
section 39 it lays out penalties. It says: “Where the commissioner determines
that a member has failed to fulfil an obligation under the code of conduct, he
or she may recommend in the report under section 38” – and it has options under
section 38 – “(a) that the member be reprimanded; (b) that the member make
restitution or pay compensation; (c) that the member be suspended from the House
of Assembly, with or without pay, for a period specified in the report; or (d)
that the member's seat be declared vacant.”
Mr.
Speaker, section 38 is the one I just referred to where it lays out two things
that could happen in the report. That's what's referenced under the penalty.
Read section 40. Section 40 says: “A recommendation in a report of the
commissioner shall not take effect unless the report is sent to the commission
under subsection 38(1) and concurred in by resolution of the House of Assembly.”
What
that means is that if the report is filed under subsection 38(2), which is where
the Premier had requested it, there's no provision for those recommendations to
come to the House of Assembly. The Premier is the person who's going to hold the
report, so there's no way the House of Assembly can know what the
recommendations were and there's no provision in the act for those
recommendations to come to the House of Assembly for penalties under section 39.
MR. SPEAKER:
If I may, you're absolutely
correct.
That is
why – and I think we could all turn to the Commissioner and ask him, but to date
the interaction he's had in terms of pursuing an allegation has been a referral
by the Premier. Neither the Member has gone to him, this House has not passed a
motion for him to investigate anything and he has not decided of his own accord
to pursue it but, certainly, that option is there available to him.
If he
were to do that, then you essentially have to – he would have to respond. Let's
just say an MHA does want to have him pursue that. He would need to go down that
road; he would need to prepare a report. I would suggest it would not be a
duplication of effort because it's essentially the same matter. The second
report would follow the process of coming to this House.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, this is where I was going to ask some of the questions of the
Commissioner because until you just mentioned a few minutes ago that there were
three such referrals, I don't know how many referrals were made.
If a
Member of the House of Assembly today decides to file a complaint with the
Commissioner, or tomorrow or next week – if next week a Member of the House
wants to file a complaint against me, how are we to know if that's going to be
part of what the Premier had previously referred? We don't know what the Premier
has referred. How is that Member of the House to know if it will be separate
from or independent, or does it fall under section 38(2) because the Premier has
already filed a referral on it?
MR. SPEAKER:
Hold it. Shall we turn to
the Commissioner?
MR. P. DAVIS:
If I just may point out one
more aspect before we go to him. I've also considered, and there's been some
suggestion kicking around that as an Opposition we have some lack of confidence
in the Commissioner. I want to say to the Commissioner that's not true.
We
endorsed the resolution for the choice of Mr. Chaulk as Commissioner; we have no
regrets on that. We continue to endorse the selection of Mr. Chaulk as
Commissioner. We don't have any reason to have no confidence in the
Commissioner. While no one has maybe said that directly, there was some innuendo
or suggestion. I wanted to clarify that.
I also
know – and this comes down to even the Premier's comments today about him
deciding what releases publicly. If we look at other independent Officers of the
House, they have the ability to release their reports and investigations
publicly; for example, the Auditor General will release their reports publicly.
It's not screened by government or by an Executive Branch of government before
the reports are released. There is a process where they can respond and so on,
but they can't determine what's going to be released publicly and what's not.
The
Citizens' Representative, under section 44, has the right to make public
reports, protecting the identity of people and information when necessary, not
the Executive Branch of government. The Privacy Commissioner regularly releases
reports on appeals and does so publicly, and I suggest as well, without input
from the Executive Branch or the legislative branch.
Probably most importantly and applicable to this, I think about the Child and
Youth Advocate, who quite often will conduct investigations on her own accord
and previous predecessors have done so as well. Very sensitive, personal and
private investigations, but yet the Child Advocate repeatedly has been able to
issue reports where they protected the identity and the integrity of the
investigation repeatedly.
Where
now we have a circumstance set up where we don't know – and that's where I'd
like to go with these questions. If a person reports tomorrow, can the
Commissioner investigate that, not being part of what the Premier has referred
or not referred? How do we know that as members? We don't know what the
Commissioner is investigating; we don't know what referrals have been made. What
assurance can people of the House have that the investigation will be conducted
and that a report could come through the House of Assembly process so that
recommendations could be acted upon?
MR. SPEAKER:
I believe I could answer all
of those questions, but I think it's most appropriate to go to the Commissioner
for a comment. If I may invite you, sir, to perhaps reflect on that and offer
some insight.
MR. CHAULK:
Certainly.
If any
Member comes and files a request under the legislation, under 38(1) I think,
then that report would go down through that mechanism. If they have evidence
they just have to bring it to me. There could be multiple reports going on at
the same time. That probably wouldn't be unusual.
I
struggle with the – so much of this is out in the press at the moment. I would
rather that Members come to me privately and then we work through a process of a
complaint against another Member. At the end of the process is when, generally,
we'd get out there what the nature of the investigation was about.
We've
had previous reports. Generally, our office doesn't report on files that we're
investigating because they may actually go nowhere, depending on the
circumstances involved. That would be reported back to the person making the
complaint and the person that was being accused. But if everybody wants a public
report then they just have to come through and put it through that process and
it would be a public report.
The way
the legislation is written it's always the Premier's prerogative to ask for an
opinion with respect to the conduct of any Member. It doesn't have to be on his
side but of any Member of the Legislature. A Member on their own can still come
to me and raise their concerns. I welcome that but I'm not going to tell you who
I've received complaints from.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
I
didn't know if that answered your question, Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think I'm going to have several questions, but you can carry on.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
At this
point in time, at this very moment, we are governed in this House as MHAs by our
Code of Conduct. Through that, then through the Commissioner's office, the
process is harassment complaints would go through the Commissioner's office.
That's the process we have today.
The
MHAs in the House have sent it already, have sent a request to the Privileges
and Elections Committee to review the harassment policies, to review the
process. So I think that is under review. The question before us today is
whether or not we need an interim process while they're under the review.
I had a
couple of questions about that earlier that I'd like to ask, that didn't get
answered.
One is,
if we're going to consider an interim process – and I listened intently to my
honourable colleague – if we're going to have an interim process, what's the
time frame for the report of the Privileges and Elections Committee? That to me
is of concern. We've sent it to them. As a House, we've sent it to the
Privileges and Elections Committee. We are grappling with the question: Do we
need an interim process to fill in the gap?
And
secondly then, I guess, the answer to the question is: Will they or will they
not look at the Code of Conduct? I'm hopeful that they will, as part of the
discourse that Mr. Speaker has said it would be congruous with the work that
they're doing.
So
timelines, Code of Conduct, and the third point here is we can be guided by some
other jurisdictions on this. We've seen what Nova Scotia's done for example,
which is a good process. We do need to make sure there's clarity, clear
definitions in the harassment policy. We do need to understand the training
process. We do have to determine how a harassment complaint has occurred and
things of that nature. So, I guess, there are several questions here that
actually the Commissioner may weigh in on as well.
First
of all, we are established in our process currently. The process currently is we
have a Code of Conduct. If I felt aggrieved, I could make a complaint to the
Commissioner. The Commissioner would review that complaint, can bring in outside
counsel, if required, to formalize that complaint process, but that's the
process we're in today. We're looking at now a process for tomorrow.
My
question is the timelines? Will they look at Code of Conduct? Then, finally,
will they be doing a jurisdictional review? I just want to make sure that we
have that on record that they will consider those matters.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll start with a couple.
First
of all, the Chair of the Privileges and Elections Committee was in our office
the morning after the PMR was passed. So they understand the urgency of it.
That
said, there is not a timeline associated with when they will deliver the work,
but they certainly understand and get the urgency, importance, priority and so
on.
MS. COADY:
(Inaudible) have a timeline?
CLERK:
A resolution of the House
giving (inaudible).
MS. COADY: Oh, a
resolution of the House.
MR. SPEAKER:
So a resolution of the House to answer the question could perhaps provide
additional direction to the P and E.
MS. COADY:
Okay, thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
In terms of a jurisdictional
scan, we have completed that through the office, and so on, and we are guided by
it. As I said in my opening remark, we have the only legislated Code of Conduct
in the country because of Green and all that went on there. We have a very
serious obligation. It is the law. Regardless of the wording, and whatever words
you find or don't find in here, this is all about unethical behaviour and the
need for us to – as you said in your opening remarks – reflect well and back on
our districts and our constituents.
So
we're all big people here. We understand the seriousness of this and while some
may suggest you can find words that may or may not appear, and perhaps there was
a gap that we've missed and maybe that's why we're hearing allegations of this
type of behaviour, I suggest that is not the case at all. This oath was a very
serious one. It's unique in the country. We took it seriously and we should take
it seriously.
I go to
the Commissioner now for comment.
MR. CHAULK:
So I'm not sure what your question is.
MS. COADY:
(Inaudible) if I may.
I guess
to you in particular is the process is under review. So the current process is
clearly laid out, we understand that and you have the opportunity to bring in
independence, if required. But just your view on interim processes, your view on
the Code of Conduct and your view on the whole movement towards a change in
policy.
If you
could just give me your view on that, that would be helpful.
MR. CHAULK:
Generally, I'm the administrator of the legislation that's provided to me as
opposed to usually commented on the legislation.
In my
opinion, the Code of Conduct is certainly encompassing enough and quite a high
enough standard that, in my opinion, clearly includes acts of harassment. You
can go through that and find it under two or three different provisions.
My
office, we do have the ability to bring in whatever expertise we need in order
to handle specific complaints. I'll be the first to say that one person doesn't
know everything and I certainly can't cover every base. My background is
generally financial, but I think reading through the Code of Conduct, it would
be obvious that they meant more than just financial in that.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I just have a
comment to make in regard to the current situation we face. I recognize my
colleagues have talked about an interim process and long term when we go the
Privileges and Elections Committee and review the policy.
My
concern is that we have particular individuals have expressed alleged harassment
and they've spoken to the lack of confidence in the process we now have. Now,
whether that's a lack of – what Ms. Michael has alluded to – clarity in terms of
what that process is or how we deal with that. I think that's significant
because someone today that feels that they've been harassed in the workplace and
don't feel comfortable coming forward, or someone we don't even know of, I think
that's extremely important.
We need
to find a way, whatever that is, to be able to instill that confidence. That's
part and parcel of a safe workplace and maybe we could do it through this or
some other way, but I just want to make that comment.
I think
that's a challenge we face to instill that confidence.
MR. SPEAKER:
Point noted.
I would
like to, on behalf of the Speaker's Office though, explain to everyone here and
those watching, that since we've encountered this issue in the last few weeks,
we have repeatedly directed all inquiries from all MHAs and the media and so on,
to our Law Clerk, Kim Hawley George, who's very carefully laid out, in a fashion
so that everyone can understand, the options that are available to them, the
seriousness of the Code, how it is paired with the amazing powers of inquiry and
subpoena that the Commissioner enjoys and how that process can unfold.
To
date, he has received only a referral from the Premier to investigate on behalf
of these two Members that we've talked about. He has not received – I can look
to him – a request from any one of the MHAs to pursue this. The House has not
passed a motion and he himself has not yet availed of the final option which is
to, based on everything, initiate his own investigation.
So in
terms of confidence, we've done our best to make sure that everyone can
understand it and present it. It is in place and I would suggest it's the best
in the country.
We are
also – and further to the jurisdictional scan comments that MHA Coady wanted us
to look at – looking at what's happening in other jurisdictions, and if you're
watching the news, there are similar situations that are emerging.
What
you'll find often in those other jurisdictions, and without going into any
specific reference but I'll stay at a high level, often government is resulting
in having to engage a third party to come and do a review of the allegation. The
report comes back but there's no structure. There's no way that there are any
kind of recommendation for recourse and so on, can be introduced back into a
Legislature to actually be dealt with.
We do
have a process in place and we're able to deal with that.
MHA
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
back up what you're saying, but in terms of – and Ms. Coady did refer to it –
Nova Scotia, for example, they do have quite a comprehensive policy that looks
at all the different perambulations of who can complain, who they're complaining
about, et cetera. The process is sort of different for each group, but theirs
does go all the way back to the House of Assembly because the report gets made
to their internal economy committee, and then that committee has to report to
the House of Assembly.
So any
recommendations that come down the pipeline get back into the House of Assembly.
I was really glad to see that. I am on the Privileges and Elections Committee,
so I have started doing my own reading and homework and trying to get up on
what's happening in other places.
The
other thing I'd like to say, and this is very personal, I'm not sure if people
really understand the seriousness of the position of a Commissioner, and in my
experience, how the commissioners that I've dealt with understand the
seriousness of their role. I would never have any doubt in confidentiality if I
went to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. Never.
With
the former Commissioner, I did have a couple of things that I had to go to him
about, and I knew with great confidence that nobody would ever know that that
had happened.
I want
to share that, for the public to understand that point, it's a very, very
serious position. If I, as an MHA, go to the Commissioner, I absolutely know
that nobody else is going to know about that.
MR. SPEAKER:
I understand.
You did
want to make a comment?
The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
MR. CHAULK:
Yes, most of my dealings with the Members is – 99 per cent of my dealings with
Members is strictly confidential. No one would know what I've discussed with
them because it's between me and the Member.
When
reports become public, then that's when – that's the other part of the job, but
the majority of the work that's done by the office is strictly confidential. If
you read any of the Commissioner's annual reports online, it will only reference
that there were discussions with Members. It won't say who the Members were, it
will only say that there were discussions with the Members.
Publicly available reports are also listed there, but for the most part
everything is privileged between the Commissioner and a Member.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much.
And I
thank Ms. Michael for her intervention there. I thought that was important for
the public to understand and for all of us to understand.
I do
want to go back to Mr. Hutchings comments. I, too, am concerned when it's been
expressed – and expressed so passionately – the concerns about the process and
the independence of the process, and how the processes can unfold. I don't know
if there's anything that we, as a Management Commission, can do about that. It
is the process that is currently outlined.
I
listened intently to the Commissioner, not only here in the House tonight and in
the public discourse in the news, talking about independence, bringing in
experts, making sure that this is handled appropriately, but how can we reassure
our colleagues that have expressed concern about this? How can we reassure them?
I think that is something I'd like to lay before the Commissioner, and you, Mr.
Speaker, to say we really do need to support those that have brought forward
complaints and work with them to understand the process as it currently exists.
Then, hopefully, we'll have an improved process that will satisfy the
requirements as we move forward.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, I would just reiterate, we've been doing our best to respond to all
matter of inquiry, any level of concern that we receive to explain that process.
It is legislated. There was a lot of thought went into it. It has a lot of
ability to work independently, but also work in a manner consistent with the
powers under the Public Inquiries Act.
This
Commissioner has the ability to subpoena records, witnesses and so on. You will
not find that in a third party that you could pick up off the street and say –
they may have all the expertise in the world, but they will not be able to get
at some of these other matters.
Any
further discussion?
MHA
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
I
appreciate the comments that have been made, and yours as well, Mr. Speaker,
because you did make some commentary on efforts so everyone understands and has
confidence in the process. So, in that line of thought, I have some questions
I'd like to ask that maybe the Commissioner could answer.
MR. CHAULK:
Sure.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'd like to have some idea,
like if there was – you referenced three referrals. I think the Commissioner
said there are two referrals. I wonder if we can get some clarity about how many
investigations there are or how many MHAs have actually filed complaints. I
don't want to know names. I'm not asking specifics of the details of the
complaints, even though it probably would have been beneficial to know, but I
respect the privacy of it.
How
many complaints were made? How many complainants are there? How many people are
subject of complaints? Maybe the Commissioner can give us some of that
information.
MR. SPEAKER:
Commissioner.
MR. CHAULK:
I'll reluctantly say that I
have received two formal complaints from Members. I won't say who. I have had
discussions with others. So I expect that it will be more than two, but I won't
identify them.
MR. DAVIS:
Sure.
MR. CHAULK:
And I do have other meetings
scheduled.
MR. DAVIS:
Let me ask the Commissioner
to explain. So if an MHA is listening tonight on – and I know there are some
here in the gallery actually that are attending tonight, which we don't normally
see in a Management Commission meeting – but if an MHA sitting and listening
tonight is contemplating filing a complaint, and we've heard concerns regarding
that the current referrals that the Premier has made will report to the Premier,
and I've referenced that earlier.
I also
referenced earlier that I acknowledge the Premier took steps to have this looked
at, even though there's some complexities and challenges to those steps.
If a
person wanted to have the complaint they feel compelled they want to make,
Commissioner what would you say to them about the complaint if it's parallel or
recognized or associated in some way with what the Premier has already referred?
What assurance can you give them that their complaint will come to the
Management Commission versus just going to the Premier?
MR. CHAULK:
My response to that would be
is if they file their complaint under 38.1, which is the Member to Member –
MR. DAVIS:
36.1.
MR. CHAULK:
– 36.1, whichever the
particular section is, that I will follow that process.
MR. DAVIS:
The reporting process under
38 and 39 and 40, as I referenced earlier –
MR. CHAULK:
Yeah.
MR. P. DAVIS:
– which says: a request and
opinion is made under 36.1, where an MHA requests, then the Commissioner shall
report his or her opinion to the Commission which shall present it to the House
of Assembly.
MR. CHAULK:
Yes.
MR. DAVIS:
Okay. So you're giving them
assurance that if they did that, even though the Premier may have already made a
referral on the same matter or –
MR. CHAULK:
Yeah, because his report as
well.
The one
thing I'll say is that while this was occurring in the Legislature, I was
looking directly myself to coming in on my own, because it's hard to argue that
it's not in the public interest if it's being debated in the Legislature during
Question Period for days on end. But I would rather be invited in, than to
impose myself into the process.
MR. DAVIS:
I actually have it in my
notes to ask if you'd be willing to come in and have a discussion, like maybe
meet with our caucus and have a full discussion from that regard.
MR. CHAULK:
I will meet with anybody individually or in a group. That is my job and my
responsibility to come in and speak to you at any time.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Michael next.
MS. MICHAEL:
Just a question for the
Commissioner.
It's
not clear to me when you make a report to the House of Assembly – obviously if
there's a recommendation that has to do with the behaviour of a MHA, that's
going to be publicly known, but will there be confidentiality with regard to the
complainant in your report?
MR. CHAULK:
This is one of these where we're trying to get to the report when we haven't
even done the investigations yet. I sometimes think it might be a bit premature
to – the person has to know who the – the parties involved will know who's in
there.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, yes.
MR. CHAULK:
Whether the report at the end of the day includes the name of the complainant or
not, you know, I haven't gotten to that part yet and I would certainly take that
in consideration with the person making the complaint and their concerns about
it. But I don't want to get to the end before we've even started the process.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Back to me already.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, I'll go back to you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
All right. Thank you.
Commissioner, I just want to go back to your comment earlier on the Code of
Conduct, because I believe that Justice Green was essentially silent in his
report on matters of harassment and bullying. But you referenced earlier that
you believe the Code of Conduct will fit that – or the Code of Conduct in some
way does reference that.
So I
just want to get some assurance from you that the wording and application of the
Code of conduct would be relevant to the matters that you're aware of so far or
have heard public discussion on.
MR. SPEAKER:
Commissioner.
MR. CHAULK:
Without looking at the specific document, I would say yes. I have no hesitation
that harassment clearly falls within the code.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You have no hesitation?
MR. CHAULK:
No hesitation whatsoever.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Because I know harassment comes in many forms. While it doesn't reference it
there, there is reference in the Code of Conduct to operating yourselves with
integrity and fairness, treating Members of the House equally and those types of
references there.
MR. CHAULK:
And to that end, I would also say that if you try to specifically narrow down a
code of conduct, that you try to create exceptions to it; and that it's broad
and lofty lends itself more to being all-encompassing and that it's easy to say
harassment is in there, even though it's overtly not put there.
MR. SPEAKER:
If I may just interject,
it's interesting – I mean, we constantly as politicians in this province hear
about the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity, and Administration Act, the Green act; but if you
look at the long title of this act, it's quite interesting and actually
informative: An Act Respecting the Effective Administration of the House of
Assembly, the Standards of Conduct of Elected Members, and their Ethical and
Accountable Behaviour.
That's
the title.
MR. CHAULK:
And if I may add, if you look at number four in the code, it specifically says
we will treat colleagues, Members and the public with courtesy and respect. What
we're talking about is respectful workplaces, so obviously it would be in there.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'd like to go back to the
Commissioner with regard to my last question.
Commissioner, if the complainant says that he or she wants to maintain
confidentiality with regard to their complaint, I'm assuming that that would be
honoured. When it comes to harassment, it's one of the very basic principles, is
confidentiality, and if it were to be broken, that it would be because the
complainant is in agreement with that happening.
MR. CHAULK:
And I would agree with you on that. If a Member comes forward and wants to be
not identified, the person who the complaint is about is obviously going to know
who it is.
MS. MICHAEL:
Oh, yes.
MR. CHAULK:
That's a given.
MS. MICHAEL:
That is a given.
MR.CHAULK:
But I can't control that person, as to what they do at the end of the day.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, but you in your work,
with the complainant, would maintain that confidentiality, unless that person
said I'd like this report to be public, I'd like myself to be known publicly.
MR. CHAULK:
Yes. That could be Member A –
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
MR. CHAULK:
– or Member B.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think that's really
important for people to hear.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
I wonder – okay, MHA Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just a couple of questions
before we consider the motion.
Two
areas – one is: What is the intent of Option 1, as far as effective date or any
retroactivity to that? It references the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy of the
Executive Branch which becomes effective June 1. But is the intention of Option
1 to apply to matters that are currently being investigated, or to become
effective for future matters that complaints are filed?
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll turn to the Clerk.
CLERK:
There were statements made
that the policy would apply to Members. If it's going to apply to Members, we
have to take a policy that's already been developed and find a way for
application to work. The Executive Branch has indicated that that policy will
have effect as of June 1. If we follow that policy, then that's the effective
date. So there's no retroactivity.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
So just
again for clarification: Does that mean if somebody files a complaint on June 1
of something that happened on May 30, the new policy applies, or would the
policy that was in effect at that time or the date of the event or the concern –
so, for example, we suspect or believe that there are Members of the House who
are reluctant to file complaints today. If they waited until June 1 to file a
complaint versus filing it today, would they have a different process to follow?
CLERK:
I will have to go back to
the Executive Branch and ask them how the application of that policy works,
because all we've done is look at it in terms of how it might apply to the
House. We didn't look at it in any way, shape or form in terms of retroactivity,
so I will have that discussion with Human Resource Secretariat.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
MHA
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I want to check on what
we're meaning by retroactivity. If you go to court, for example, and you're
complaining about something that happened two years ago, that may be in the past
but your complaint is in the present –
CLERK:
That's why I need
(inaudible).
MS. MICHAEL:
– and I would assume, I
would hope, that it's exactly the same thing. That it's the moment of the
complaint that would be what would be dealt with and would be under whatever is
in place, not when the event happened. I mean, I would assume that. I'm not a
lawyer, but my experience tells me that's the way it would be.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Actually if a complaint is
made regarding something that happened previous, the charge is laid based on the
date and the law that was in place on that date is what applies.
MS. MICHAEL:
But this is a bit different
I would think. We need to have it checked out obviously.
MS. HAWLEY GEORGE:
If I might just (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
The Law Clerk.
MS. HAWLEY GEORGE:
As the Clerk has said,
we have simply suggested this tonight as a stopgap measure if Members feel they
need something – there's something that needs to be in place in addition to the
Code of Conduct.
We've
plugged in all of the ideas in the Executive Branch policy. In order to answer
these questions – and I appreciate the question is a very valid question – we
would go back to HRS and see how they are applying theirs, make sure we're
consistent because that's the idea here.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further questions or comments?
MR. P. DAVIS:
This is in addition to the Code of Conduct process that currently exists. Would
there then be an option come June 1 for a Member of the House to decide which
process they want to follow this through?
MR. SPEAKER:
As I indicated in my remarks, should we suggest there needs to be another
process in the interim before the Privileges and Elections Committee does its
work and comes back with the recommendations? Yes, this would be essentially a
second way to pursue a harassment allegation.
I'll go
to the Law Clerk, please.
MS. HAWLEY GEORGE:
If I might just add again, it's complicated.
You
have a Code of Conduct process in place which is statutorily based and then
we're adding the idea, if Members feel that's necessary, of a policy process.
Adding the policy process will not negate the Code of Conduct statutory process.
It will have to work together somehow. As we go forward we'd have to figure that
out.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
I think
there are some questions to be answered. I understand from Ms. Michael she still
wanted to review this kind of interim policy. We're here; we have to come back
for item 3 in any event. We could take it under advisement, talk to our caucuses
and see if this interim is a required step and consider it when we meet again in
short order to address item 3.
Is that
a satisfactory resolution?
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll look for a motion to defer.
MHA
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
There's one other area that I haven't broached yet, but before we consider the
motion I'd like to know some of the information.
My
inquiry is on the status of the current Members, or the Member for Humber - Bay
of Islands and Mount Scio. Can you give us an explanation of what their status
actually is right now?
MR. SPEAKER:
These two Members are no longer affiliated with the government caucus. They are
sitting as independents in this House of Assembly. They have both written to me
seeking my approval to grant their absence from this House of Assembly while
we're sitting.
Under
the abilities that I have there are a variety of criteria that one can cite in
terms of sickness, personal reasons and so on, and then the final one is at the
discretion of the Speaker. I have decided that given everything – I'm going to
be very careful what I say, but in consultation with the staff and so on we felt
it best to grant the approval for them to be absent at this time. There's no
time limit on it but there were circumstances that we felt it would be best.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I appreciate that. I only
ask because some people have asked me what it means – I think the term you used
was personal leave. I think it might have been a term you used before. Some
people asked me what that meant and I didn't know. Effectively, you've excused
them from sitting in the House until the end of the session this year is what it
sounds like.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have not put a time limit
on it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay, but they're still
MHAs.
MR. SPEAKER:
Absolutely.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further questions or
comments?
I
believe we almost had a motion there. I seek to MHA Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
I'm
sensing a will, a motion to defer that item so that we can have further
discussions and get some answers to the questions. That process was just laid
before us and I think I'm hearing from my colleagues that we'd like to have some
time to consider whether or not an interim process is required.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do I have a seconder?
MHA
Michael.
All
those in favour of that motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
The
item is deferred until our next meeting.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
We'll meet briefly before
this (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
I will –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I just inquired whether we'd
reconvene before this parliamentary session concludes.
MS. COADY:
That's up to the Management Commission.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I think we should, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think we have to.
MR. SPEAKER:
If that's what we want to
do, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, we have to.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, so noted.
I'll
turn now to the final tab.
MHA
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I have a
question with regard to Tab 4. We have here this document in Tab 4, the
application of the Executive Branch Harassment-Free Workplace Policy. I think
the process for the Executive Branch policy for the public service sector is
quite clear because that's all laid out in the policy.
But
there is a process here, the equivalent, for HOAS employees, caucus office staff
and constituency assistants. If we're not discussing this tonight – because
that's separate from the MHAs – when can we ask questions about this? I have
some questions about it.
CLERK:
You can ask questions now.
We
always work under the premise that if there's no specific decision made, the
policies of the Executive Branch apply and we just make, as I said, the
appropriate adjustments. So the deputy minister becomes the Clerk, that sort of
thing.
MS. MICHAEL:
But I need some
clarification on one or two points in it.
CLERK:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Will we do that now?
CLERK:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
Everybody knows the documents I'm talking about?
MR. SPEAKER:
You're referring to the
harassment policy?
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm referring to –
MR. SPEAKER:
You're certainly referring
to this analysis in terms of –
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right, yes.
CLERK:
Yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
But I'm just thinking that
the harassment policy itself has been generated by the Executive Branch.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, this is the work that's
been done by the Clerk in trying to do the parallel process for the –
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Fine, yeah, you have
the people here.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
I'm on
the second page and the second bullet says that the Clerk in the Executive
Council – that would be a DM. The Clerk schedules a meeting between the
Harassment-Free Workplace manager, the House of Assembly rep assigned by the
Clerk and respondent.
I'm
wondering about the HOA rep. Would that be somebody from Human Resources or the
person in charge of Human Resources and Payroll Administration? It just says
assigned by the Clerk.
CLERK:
That would typically be the
Human Resources manager, unless the complaint was against the Human Resources
manager and you'd have to find an alternative way.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
So then
when we come to page 3 – and that's fine because on page 4 it does refer to the
Human Resources manager being the equivalent of the Human Resource Secretariat,
so that's fine. On page 3, in the Informal – Management Intervention – so I'm
looking over on the left-hand side, the Informal – Management Intervention – in
the Executive Council policy, that second bullet: “If the complaint is against
Manager, intervention may be requested by the next level of management.” You
have two bullets there under the Informal – Management.
When
you go over to the Equivalent Process for the HOAS staff, et cetera, it says:
Same. Does that mean same with regard to the two bullets that are there? Because
if it doesn't, it doesn't indicate that thing about if the complaint is against
a manager. So, for example, if my assistant complains to me about something
that's happened, that's fine, but what if it's me who's the bully? What if it's
the chief of staff who's the bully?
CLERK:
That's the issue, it doesn't
apply. Right now, it wouldn't apply to Members.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, that's not –
CLERK:
To a complaint against the
Member.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, well, even that. Let's
forget I said me. Let's look at the caucus office staff.
CLERK:
Mm-hmm.
MS. MICHAEL:
They would complain to the
manager, but if it's the caucus chief of staff who's doing the bullying, who do
they go to?
CLERK:
Well, if that circumstance
arose we would have to identify another person in the caucus office. That's the
same way – for example, in the Executive Branch, they haven't specifically
addressed deputy ministers or the Clerk of the Executive Council because they
would have to find a process.
Now, in
the situation with the Clerk of the House, if the complaint was there, we said
well the best place to put that one would be to the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards –
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
CLERK:
– because we have that body.
For the caucus office staff, if the person being complained about was the chief
of staff –
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
CLERK:
– because that is the senior
manager in a caucus office.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
CLERK:
Then I think we would have
to probably work with the Leader of the caucus and find a way around that.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think something needs to
be indicated about that then here. Because when it comes to the Executive Branch
policy, it says if the complaint is against manager, intervention maybe
requested by next level of management.
CLERK:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
So we need to have something
like that in that column.
MR. SPEAKER:
And frankly, if I may,
that's just an example of the cumbersomeness –
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
– and complexity of trying
to take what's intended for staff –
MS. MICHAEL:
Exactly.
MR. SPEAKER:
– versus the elected Members
and their structures.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
Okay, I
think that's it.
So if
somebody were complaining, like if my assistant were complaining about me, the
assistant goes to the Commissioner?
CLERK:
Only if you adopt the
interim –
MS. MICHAEL:
That's what I mean, I'm
looking at if that's possible.
CLERK:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, all my questions are
answered on that point.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, are we good?
I'm
going to move on to Tab 5.
This is
relating to a suggestion that additional training should be now considered
mandatory for elected officials. So let me just go through some of my notes here
quick.
Following recent events, the Minister of Finance requested myself, the Speaker,
that the Management Commission consider mandatory training for all MHAs on
harassment. Section 22 of the Green act assigns responsibility to myself,
assisted by the Clerk, for the development and delivery of appropriate training
and orientation programs for MHAs, Members of the Management Commission and
officers and staff of House of Assembly service.
While
the Act makes it mandatory for the Speaker to ensure appropriate training and
orientation is delivered, it does not make attendance mandatory. So that's the
question before us. Attendance at any training or information session is at the
discretion of the individual MHA.
I would like to remind – if
the Commissioner has the Code of Conduct – in Principle 1 of the Code of
Conduct, it states the following: “Members
shall inform themselves of and shall conduct themselves in accordance with the
provisions and spirit of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act,
the
Members' Resources and Allowances Rules, the
Elections Act, 1991, the
House of Assembly Act and this Code of Conduct and shall ensure that
their conduct does not bring the integrity of their office or the House of
Assembly into disrepute.”
So in order to make attendance at
training sessions mandatory for MHAs, House officials advise that an amendment
to section 22 of the act would be necessary to give it back to this. So that's
what the Commission is being asked to consider, is whether or not we should make
that training mandatory.
MS. MICHAEL:
Just that training, or all the rest of
the training as well? Because I took it to mean all of the training.
CLERK:
It would be training in general.
MS. MICHAEL:
I think there's a slight, I won't say
problem, but if you've been in the House 10 years, for example, I don't need to
go to hear about the travel, living and constituency allowance, I don't.
MR. SPEAKER:
Uh-huh.
MS. MICHAEL:
So if you make it mandatory, without
taking into consideration some of that kind of thing, then I'll have to go and
waste maybe an hour. Unless it were something brand new being brought in.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think it's a relevant and important
consideration to make.
We just saw in our last Management
Commission, we had a discussion about advertising, and some Members were aware
of the change, some Members were not aware of the change. For the amount of time
it takes to go through training, as painful as it might be for some of us to sit
and then probably have 99 or 98 per cent of it repeated from what we already
know, I don't think is a bad thing.
I find the rules – I quite often refer
– my office quite often refer back to the rules or will call the House for
input, and for a couple of hours, I don't think it's a bad thing.
The other thing too, Mr. Speaker, I
would say, is that this training would likely happen after a general election,
as an example, and it would be beneficial to new MHAs to have veteran MHAs there
with them who sometimes could say I remember when or to share their own
experiences. I think it would be a good thing to do.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
I agree; I certainly agree with Mr.
Davis and Ms. Michael that it would be beneficial to have –
I know as a new MHA, I sat
through the training and having people around me who were veteran and senior to
me to impart their knowledge on us, I think it was beneficial.
So I
move to accept this recommendation to have mandatory training.
MR. SPEAKER:
Let me just, if I may, read
the actual option of what would be before us.
“Direct
the Law Clerk to draft amendments to section 22 of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act that would make attendance at training
mandatory for MHAs, with the draft amendments to be brought forward at a future
meeting for approval.”
So
that's essentially your motion.
Do we
have seconder for that?
MS. MICHAEL:
I second.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded by MHA Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
I now would seek a motion to
adjourn.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved my MHA Davis.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded my MHA Hutchings.
Thank
you very much, and I thank those watching on the broadcast.
On
motion, meeting adjourned.