June 29,
2016
The
Management Commission met at approximately 10:30 a.m. in the House of Assembly
Chamber.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
For the purposes of broadcast, this is the House of Assembly Management
Commission. We have a number of items on the agenda. I will ask members around
the table to introduce themselves.
Prior to
doing that, we have Lisa Dempster who is not a member, but is Deputy Speaker,
and can sit in on the Management Commission meetings, does not vote; Andrew
Parsons is joining us by telephone, and all other members are here at the table.
We'll
start with Mr. Davis to my left.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Paul Davis, Member for
Topsail Paradise.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, MHA,
District of Ferryland.
MR. BROWNE:
Mark Browne, MHA, Placentia
West Bellevue.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, MHA, St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. KEEFE:
Marie Keefe, Clerk's Office.
CLERK (Barnes):
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm Tom Osborne, Speaker and
Chair of the Management Commission.
So we'll
get straight to business. Under Tab 1, we have the approval of the minutes for
the November 6 Management Commission meeting. There's a decision required here.
There are four sets of minutes submitted for the Commission's approval today.
First is the minutes for the November 6, 2015 meeting. We need a proposed
motion, I guess, that the Commission approve the minutes of November 6, 2015
meeting.
I know
Members had copies of the agenda for some time, so I'm asking for somebody to
move that motion and somebody to second it.
Moved by
Lorraine Michael; seconded by Keith Hutchings.
The
second set of minutes is for the March 16, 2016 meeting. Again, the proposed
motion is that the Commission approve the minutes of the March 16, 2015 meeting.
I am looking for a mover and a seconder for that motion.
Moved by
Mark Browne; seconded by Lorraine Michael.
Third
are the minutes to the March 23, 2016 meeting. The proposed motion is that the
Commission approve the minutes of the March 23, 2015 it should be 2016
meeting. Actually, the first one should be March 16, 2016 as well. That's motion
number two.
The
third is that the Commission approves the minutes of the March 23, 2016 meeting.
I'm looking for a mover and seconder.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So moved.
MR. BROWNE:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Keith Hutchings;
seconded by Mark Browne.
The last
minutes were for the May 30, 2016 meeting. Again, the proposed motion is that
the Commission approve the minutes of the May 30, 2016 meeting.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just a comment on that one,
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, absolutely.
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) the time of that
meeting, but it indicates regrets. I know it was a short meeting. I think there
was only one item of business that was actually discussed there.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, I do recall actually
that you arrived late. We will change the minutes to reflect the fact that Paul
Davis was at the meeting, as opposed to regrets.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Other than that, any other
comments?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I move approval, as amended.
MR. SPEAKER:
All right.
Moved by
Mr. Davis; seconded by Lorraine Michael.
Also
under Tab 1, there are three reports. The first two reports are the
authorizations made by the Speaker or the Clerk. There are no decisions
required, but we are required to report these to the Management Commission. The
first report is Rulings on Allowance Use, which is provided in accordance with
the requirements of the Members' Resources
and Allowances Rules.
The
report is the Speaker's approval of appeals to claims by Members which would
have been approved had they been submitted on time but they were beyond the
60-day filing period, and the details of those approvals are provided in the
briefing materials.
The
second report is the Delegated Authority Respecting Financial Matters. It is
provided in accordance with the reporting requirements. It's for reporting
purposes only, and here the Speaker is using authority under CM 2008-095 approve
the restatement of Estimates for Budget
2016. The details of the approval are provided in the briefing materials.
The
third report is the ninth report of the Audit Committee to the Management
Commission, which is provided in accordance with the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, and that's for reporting purposes only as
well.
So those
are just reporting to the Management Commission activities that have been
undertaken. I will ask if there are any comments or issues that anybody wanted
to raise on those items that were within the briefing materials
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just briefly, maybe staff
could give me the changes on the second one I don't seem to have it the
restatement of the Estimates for the budget (inaudible).
CLERK:
It was the Department of
Finance when they were finalizing the Estimates and how they had to restate it.
I don't have particular details with me right now, but I will get them and get
them to you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, that's fine.
CLERK:
I think we provided them at
the time.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's fine, thank you.
CLERK:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
So basically in order to have
the budget ready and the tight time constraints, Finance had asked for
reallocations within the House of Assembly budget
MR. P. DAVIS:
Sure.
MR. SPEAKER:
and those reallocations
were made.
CLERK:
But it didn't change our
appropriations in any way.
MR. P. DAVIS:
No, no, and I understand
those movements and changes occur.
CLERK:
I will get them, though.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, everybody ready?
Lorraine
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
It is a question with regard
to the audit report, if I could.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, absolutely.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm interested in not so much
the content, but under number 13 and number 14, for example, in the report the
committee recommended that the House of Assembly seek clarification related to
severance benefits for political support staff; the committee to discuss the
management certification review with Grant Thornton representatives.
I guess
I'll ask the Chair, since he's sitting at the table. Are there further actions
from those? It talks about discussion, but are there further actions from those?
MR. SPEAKER:
So the question is directed
to Mark Browne as Chair of the Audit Committee.
MR. BROWNE:
I would have to defer to the
Clerk. Much of these activities were undertaken prior to my assuming the
chairmanship of the committee in the previous General Assembly. So I'm not sure
if the Clerk would have any details on that?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, and fair enough, most of
the material in this audit report would have been under the previous Audit
Committee prior to Mr. Browne's arrival on the Management Commission.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
Would
the Clerk have any information on that?
CLERK:
Yes, I just wanted to state
that I am not a member of the Audit Committee. It is clerked by the Clerk
Assistant, in terms of (inaudible) but I am aware of this issue.
What it
is that the order in council referenced there is rather old, and when the
Auditor General did his audit last year he was of the view that there could be
two different interpretations. That said, the House has consistently interpreted
in a particular way, and he agreed with that interpretation.
An order
in council is not the House's to change. So we have asked Executive Council if
they could amend that Order, and that's something they are working on. In the
meantime, we made sure that the language in all of the political support
contracts following the general election was very clear in terms of the
severance benefit.
MR. SPEAKER:
Does that answer your
question?
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, that's helpful.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Thank you.
So are
we ready to move to Tab 2? Any other questions or comments?
Under
Tab 2, that's the Approval to Renew the Lease of the Office of the Chief
Electoral Officer. There is a decision required on this. The current lease for
the premises of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer at 35 Hallett Crescent
ends May 17, 2016, but will continue in the interim on a month-to-month basis.
The current lease for the office has no renewal clause. It is recommended that
the Management Commission approve the renewal of the current lease for a further
five years under the same terms and conditions.
Subsection 4(5) of the Public Tender Act
requires that leases without a renewal clause be renewed only by the approval of
the Lieutenant Governor in Council. In this particular case, it would be by the
Management Commission.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, go ahead.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm just wondering on this
one here, I believe we are getting a new Chief Electoral Officer at some point
in the near future.
MR. SPEAKER:
We are, yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Should we not wait until that
individual is in before we move forward.
CLERK:
If I may, on this matter?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
CLERK:
Okay. This has to do with the premises. The lease where they are now has
expired. They have particular needs in terms of they need warehouse space.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay.
CLERK:
Transportation and Works is
conducting a space review. So their recommendation, it's probably not the best
time to go for tender until the results of that review are known; but, in the
meantime, we're going month to month in the premises that we're in now. So it
really doesn't tie into the appointment of a new Chief Electoral Officer. That
has to go to the Independent Appointments Commission, and then that person
wouldn't be in place until the House deals with it via resolution. So we're
looking at some time
MR. SPEAKER:
November or December.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So T & W is doing a review.
CLERK:
A space review, yes.
There
could be as a result of that review, there may be space that can be
reallocated from government inventory. We don't know that yet.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So if that's the case,
wouldn't you continue going month to month?
CLERK:
Well, the problem is that the
landlord could terminate the lease at any time because we don't have a lease in
place.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The other question then
MR. SPEAKER:
Paul Davis, just for
Broadcast.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
other question I have is that we're expecting another budget this fall. We don't
know what's contained in that budget. Will that have any implications on space
or will other space become available as part of that? Now I don't know if that's
part of what Transportation and Works is doing on their space review.
We don't
know what government plans are for the future but it ties into a five-year
lease. My question is, considering all of the factors, is that the most
appropriate
MR. SPEAKER:
Good points raised by Mr. Parsons and Mr. Davis.
Clerk,
do we have any indication from the landlord, Fairview Investments, of any
intention to cancel the lease? Have they had any communication with us?
CLERK:
No. They would have
communicated with the Chief Electoral office directly, but our understanding is
that Transportation and Works recommended we not go we would have issued a
tender for a new lease, but they wanted to complete the space review. By the
time that review is done and any adjustments, I would think you'd be pretty
close to
MR. A. PARSONS:
Have they given any
indication of when the review is going to be done?
CLERK:
I know it's ongoing. We don't
know exactly when it will happen. We don't know what the outcome will be and we
don't know how long it's going to take.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The only thing I'm maybe
it's completely off base here, is that if there's a review ongoing and if we go
ahead and sign a five-year lease, well, there's no point including this in a
review, right?
CLERK:
But it wouldn't be part of
that review, because they're reviewing government-owned space I think.
MR. A. PARSONS:
But I think they're also
exploring leases, are they not?
CLERK:
We haven't been party to it.
It's just that their recommendation was that we renew their recommendation was
rather than retender at this point, we renew the lease.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay. So T & W said renew it?
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay. If T & W said it, well,
then that's fine.
CLERK:
Yes. Normally, these have
been going to Treasury Board but because the House is separate, that's why we
had to bring it to the Management Commission. My understanding is this is
something that has been a standard practice on some of these things that have
been coming up for renewal.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Do Keith
Hutchings have a question or a comment?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Just for
some commentary in regard to a TW review of public-owned property and inventory
and what's available. I do have concerns in regard to just an automatic
extension here of five years without exploring with the owner of the premises if
something to a lesser degree could be accomplished. Because if we approve for
five years, basically any findings of a review in the near future will not do
anything to have possibly more efficient utilization of public space.
We know
what's happening in regard to market here now in St. John's, certainly on the
private side. There may be space that's freed up. I just don't see the point in
approving a five-year lease because we're locked in then for five years.
CLERK:
If I may?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Clerk.
CLERK:
Four years from now we'll be going into a general election and, as I said, the
Chief Electoral office has peculiar needs because of warehousing and things like
that. So you want to make sure we have stability through the election process,
the general election cycle. I wouldn't want to see them moving in the same year
that the general election is called.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, I understand it. I guess
all I'm saying is that under Analysis here it says, Internal Consultation(s):
Not applicable; External Consultation(s): Not applicable.
Can we
just have a discussion with the owner of the premises and just see
CLERK:
Oh, we can go back. Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
what's his preference or
her preference as regards to the property. If not, then we're saying we don't
care about the cost because it's the Chief Electoral office. We're just going to
lock in for five years and what it is it is. Recognizing it is confirmed and
we'll adopt whatever was in place now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Can I make a suggestion?
If
Transportation and Works, through their review even if they come back in
September or October with potential space, it's still going to take another
three or four months perhaps for that space to be available if there is
identified space for the Chief Electoral office. I know they need office space;
they need warehouse space.
Would it
be a reasonable suggestion that we enter into discussions with the landlord to
renew for one year with the possible extension for the additional four? Because
there's an extension of five years permitted here, an additional extension of
five years. Would it be reasonable to enter into discussions with the owner for
one year? Because the better part of that one year is going to be tied up with
the review and then making space suitable for the Chief Electoral office should
space be available. If it's not available within that year we'll know and we can
renew the lease for the additional four.
Lorraine
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I would agree with that,
based on what Keith said as well, because I was going to put in a similar
suggestion: Let's give a direction that the Chief Electoral office have a
discussion and Transportation and Works may have to be involved it is exactly
what you're saying. I don't think it's for us to come up with the details but to
direct them to have these conversations and to seek can an interim agreement to
be made under the same conditions with the landlord. And you suggested one year
while Transportation and Works does their review. So I think this is a good way
to go actually.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the renewal is permitted
for an additional five years, can we enter into negotiations with the landlord
to renew for one year, pending the review of Transportation and Works, and then
add the additional four if space is not available. If space is available, then
you are locked in for one year only.
Lorraine
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
If I may add, and I just
alluded to it, the issue is that landlords like the five years. They give better
terms under five years. So we'd have to make sure that the landlord would be
agreeable with this condition for that first year, to keep the same conditions
for the first year and not be looking for more money in case it doesn't get
renewed. A hard-nosed landlord might say that.
MR. SPEAKER:
If we are able to obtain that
understanding, then we know the Chief Electoral office is safe going into the
next election either by renewal for the additional four or by space through
Transportation and Works.
Is
everybody agreeable with that motion that we enter into discussions with the
landlord for renewal for one year, with the right to an additional four, pending
the outcome of the Transportation and Works review?
Paul
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The discussions may lead to a
different outcome. Of course, that would come back to the Commission anyway.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think that's a good
direction to take, to have the discussion with the landlord.
MR. SPEAKER:
Can I have somebody move the
motion then?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I'll move the motion.
MS. MICHAEL:
And I will second it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Keith Hutchings and Lorraine
Michael.
Everybody satisfied, aye.
Hearing
no opposing remarks, that motion is approved.
Tab 3,
Requests for Approval to Fill Positions, there is a decision required here.
There are two requests before the Commission today. One is for the Office of the
Auditor General and one for the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. Both
require decisions.
The
Office of the Auditor General is seeking approval to fill the new permanent
position of audit principal, which was approved as part of the
Budget 2016. I believe the
Management Commission had previous discussions on this as well. So it's the
conversion of an existing vacant position, and the details of the request are
provided in the briefing note in the materials provided.
Any
discussion?
Can we
have a mover?
The
proposed motion would be that the Commission gets approval to the Office of the
Auditor General to fill the position of principal performance audit.
MS. MICHAEL:
Moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Lorraine Michael.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded by Paul Davis.
The
Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is requesting approval to permanently
fill the position of executive secretary, and the details of that are in the
briefing materials provided to Members as well.
Any
discussion or questions on that?
MR. P. DAVIS:
This is temporarily filled at
this point in time, I understand.
CLERK:
Yes. If I might
MR. SPEAKER:
The Clerk.
CLERK:
The permanent incumbent
retired in November and they had a temporary in that position. That temporary
was from a line department and had to return to their job, so they were waiting
for an opportunity to bring it to the Management Commission to get approval to
post it on a permanent basis. So she's without anyone over there right now. That
person just went back, I think, this week.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other questions or
comments?
MR. BROWNE:
I have a question.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mark Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
What's the salary range for
that position?
CLERK:
That position, they just did
a review of it. I can find it if you want to give me a moment, I can find step
out and get it.
MR. BROWNE:
No, you can follow up with me
later, probably.
CLERK:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Lorraine
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Just to point out, I think we
had discussions on this with the
MR. SPEAKER:
With the Child and Youth
Advocate during the Management Commission
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, that's right. So I think
we're just following up on decisions that we indicated we would be making.
MR. SPEAKER:
Exactly, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
So it's no new money in the
budget; it's there in the budget already.
CLERK:
Oh yes, it's a funded
position. I will get you the salary scale.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, so, Mr. Browne, are you
okay to vote on this or did you want to come back and move on to other issues
and get the
MR. BROWNE:
No, that's just a piece of
information I'd like, but (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, okay.
The
proposed motion is that the Commission gives approval to the Office of the Child
and Youth Advocate to permanently fill the position of executive secretary.
We have
a mover.
MS. MICHAEL:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Lorraine Michael.
Anybody
second?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis.
Any
opposing views?
Approved.
Tab 4 is
Amendments to the Cellphone Policies & Standard Office Allocation Package. If
Members recall, during the budget process, the Management Commission passed a
motion that allowed for a maximum of three cellphone replacements per General
Assembly. During deliberations, the Management Commission directed that
Members, Constituency Assistants, employees (Caucus Offices, House of Assembly
Service and Statutory Offices) be limited to three (3) cellular phone
replacements per General Assembly.
To give
effect to this direction, the Commission will need to approve the revisions to
two policies regarding cellphone and landline phone services and will need to
amend the Standard Office Allocation Package for Members and constituency
assistants. The proposed revisions are noted in red in the draft policies
attached to the briefing note.
Any
questions? Any comments?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a
brief comment and it's somewhat related. As I went through essentially three
documents here that are amending Cellular and Landline Phone Services Policy
for Members and constituency assistants, the Standard Office Allocation Package
for Members of the House and constituency assistants and employees of the House.
On the second one, the Standard Office Allocation I couldn't help but notice
that under Equipment we still allow for VCRs. I was somewhat humoured by it
myself because I don't think you can buy a VCR anymore.
CLERK:
You can on Kijiji. I've done
it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You can obtain PVRs which I
can tell you, personally, I use regularly for recording newscasts and House of
Assembly business and so on. I don't know if we can do that update while we're
doing this one or not.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think we should. That's
under item 2 in the Standard Office Allocation Package for Members and
constituency assistants dated June 2016. Under item 2, one VCR or DVD recorder
or one combination unit, we should strike VCR and put in PVR or DVD recorder or
one combination unit.
Are all
Members in agreement with that?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just as a further comment on
it, I don't know if we wanted to reword it, because we don't know what
technology will be available next month, and just indicate it as some type of a
unit to record television broadcasts.
CLERK:
Why don't we just say one
recording device?
MR. P. DAVIS:
For television.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, one recording device for
a television.
MR. P. DAVIS:
One recording device for
television.
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, since we're having that
discussion, there is an issue with regard to the fact that MHAs cannot have
iPads covered. iPads are becoming so standard now. Ministers use them. There are
staff in the public service sector and offices that have them, yet MHAs can't
have them.
I
personally have one covered because of my hands. I can't use BlackBerrys well.
So because of ergonomic reasons, I've been able to get it covered. Other MHAs
look at me and they're really jealous, and I don't blame them.
I also
had to explain every time I needed service to have to explain to the person at
OCIO, check the number because I am covered. Knowing the use of iPads now and
how standard they are, I really do think we need to look at the issue of iPads
for MHAs.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Is that a discussion
Members want to have today?
CLERK:
Can I make a comment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Clerk.
CLERK:
The technology that we use,
the standard is set by the Office of the Chief Information Officer. The
technology has to interact with the government infrastructure, and, of course,
there are all kinds of security aspects around the government infrastructure.
They had
a pilot on iPads, and there were a number that were connected. They are no
longer maintaining that connectivity on iPads, generally. That's why we have the
Lenovo tablets now. There is a tablet available; it's just not an iPad.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think all Members, with the
exception of Ms. Michael Ms. Michael has the iPad. I think all other Members
have the Lenovo tablet.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, they don't. Ms. Rogers
doesn't have a tablet. We didn't know that. That's not common information.
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) the replacement
now.
CLERK:
That's the replacement. They
have a choice.
MR. P. DAVIS:
My desktop was replaced. I
had an older laptop and it was replaced. It was a unit that's a desktop, laptop,
tablet. It's a combination of (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Ms. Rogers may still be using
a laptop. Once that's replaced, it's replaced with the Lenovo tablet.
MS. MICHAEL:
She can choose to have that
replaced?
CLERK:
She can choose.
MS. MICHAEL:
Well, we didn't get any
direction on that.
MR. P. DAVIS:
No, only because I went and
got mine replaced.
MS. MICHAEL:
There's no general direction
on it.
MR. SPEAKER:
I don't think she was
excluded. I think what it is, is as they're replaced.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, when I say we, I don't
mean as NDP. I don't think MHAs we did not send out any kind of general
direction on this, I don't think, information-wise.
MR. SPEAKER:
I don't think it was. Again,
I don't think it was sent out to anybody. I think what happened, Ms. Michael,
was as laptops are being replaced, they're being replaced with the tablet. If
her laptop fails or runs into issues, they'll replace it with the tablet.
MS. MICHAEL:
I guess my point is that
there is a difference, though, between the use of a tablet and the use of a
laptop. It is different. The tablet is much more like having an iPad. So I think
we should give an option then, if this is happening to MHAs in general, if
they'd like to change laptop for tablet.
CLERK:
It is. As the technology is
refreshed, Members are given a choice of do they want a desktop, do they want a
laptop or do they want a tablet. That choice is given. Obviously Ms. Rogers's
technology is not ready for refreshment yet because there's a certain life cycle
after which they replace it.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay. I guess I'm saying can
we consider making it happen for all MHAs if they want it. I guess that's what
I'm putting out there.
CLERK:
Well, there's a cost to that.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yeah, I realize.
CLERK:
As I said, as the technology
comes up in the refresh cycle when new Members came in, they were given the
option of desktop, laptop or tablet, whatever happens to be on the standing
offer at that particular point in time. As equipment fails or it's eligible for
refreshment, then they have the option of whatever is on the standing offer at
that time.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other discussion or
comments?
MS. MICHAEL:
I still think it would be
good to have a memo go out with that information because maybe somebody's is
ready for refreshment and doesn't even know it and they're not even checking. I
just think there should be a memo about it. It's not general information. From
that perspective, it's not general information for all MHAs, so I think we
should have a memo on it.
CLERK:
Okay, I will check the
general operations on that for you. Okay?
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Any other comments or
questions?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Your iPad works better
because it's 3G, but the new ones don't have that function.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right. I have my iPad.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. So we have agreed that
we'll change it from one VCR or DVD recorder to one recording device for
television.
Outside
of that, or in addition to that, the proposed motion is: Pursuant to
subparagraph 20(6)(b)(ii) of the House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the Commission
approves the proposed amendments to the following:
Cellular and Landline Phone Services
Policy for Members of the House of Assembly and Constituency Assistants;
Standard Office Allocation Package for Members and Constituency Assistants; and
Cellular and Landline Phone Services Policy for Employees of the House of
Assembly Service, Caucus Offices and Statutory Offices.
Do I
have a mover to that? Mr. Davis.
A
seconder? Mr. Hutchings.
Okay.
Any other discussion or comments on that? Any opposing views?
Mr.
Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
For the caucus offices, is
there any formula or limit or number of how many cellphones or BlackBerrys would
be issued in the caucus offices?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, it's the same thing;
it's a maximum of three per General Assembly.
MR. BROWNE:
Okay. I know but I'm asking,
is every employee given a BlackBerry automatically or is there a limit per
caucus office?
MR. SPEAKER:
Ms. Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Caucus offices have their
budget and they budget accordingly. They make the decision on BlackBerrys. So,
for example, this regulation is great for us because we can't afford any more
than that. We can only afford one new BlackBerry. If we had to replace one in
our caucus
MR. SPEAKER:
For constituency assistants,
I think three applies.
MS. MICHAEL:
we can only afford one a
budget year really. The caucus makes the decision, the chief of staff, office
manager or whatever makes those decisions based on their budget.
MR. SPEAKER:
The three would apply to
everybody.
MS. MICHAEL:
The three applies, yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Previously, and in the
discussions, some Members go four, five, six years with one cellular or staff
members and some have gone through two and three a year. So we've limited the
number to three per General Assembly. We understand that these things can give
out, malfunction, get lost or broken, but if you go beyond three a year you take
it out of constituency funds or caucus funds.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Under the employee's Cellular
and Landline Telephone Policy for Employees of the House of Assembly, Caucus
Offices and Statutory Offices, under section 4.4 it outlines the criteria of
who's actually eligible for, and how that process is determined. It's part of
what the policy does.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think that's maybe what Mr.
Browne may have been referring to. I know there's some variance there but
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other discussion,
comments, questions? Okay.
Do we
have a mover to the proposed motion?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think we already did.
MR. SPEAKER:
We did, sorry. Yes, the
comment was afterward.
Any
opposing views to the proposed motion?
Approved.
Tab 5,
Delegated Authority Urgent Financial Matters, and there is a decision required
here. At the November 18, 2008, the Management Commission delegated authority to
the Speaker in consultation with the Government House Leader, the Official
Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the Third Party to make decisions
respecting financial matters relating to the administration of the House of
Assembly and statutory offices. This authority can be used when a decision is of
an urgent nature and the Commission is unable to meet on a timely manner.
There
are no issues arising when the Third Party's representative on the Commission is
the leader of the caucus; however, if the leader is not a representative on the
Commission or an elected Member, the ability to use the authority is impacted.
It's recommended that the Commission make a new decision delegating authority to
the Speaker which accurately reflects the membership of the Commission as
outlined in subsection 18(2) of the act.
Any
discussion prior to going to the proposed motion?
Lorraine
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I understand where it's
coming from and I agree with what it's saying, except we talk about the House
Leaders, and the Third Party also has a House Leader. So it's not the leader of
the caucus, just like the Government House Leader is not the Premier and the
Opposition House Leader is not the Leader of the Official Opposition.
You have
the House Leader for the government, the House Leader for the Official
Opposition and the House Leader for the Third Party. So I just didn't understand
why it just couldn't say House Leader of the Third Party.
The
Third Party representative is fine, but I just don't understand why it can't say
that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MS. MICHAEL:
Because with the other two,
with government and the Official Opposition, it's the leader and the House
Leader, the leader and the House Leader. And with the Third Party, it's House
Leader.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
The
Clerk.
CLERK:
If I may. In constituting the
Management Commission, the legislation is really specific and it says the
membership of the Commission is the Government House Leader and the Opposition
House Leader, that sort of thing. However, it just says a representative of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, keeping with this
language.
CLERK:
It has to be the person who's
on the Management Commission. We may not necessarily have the House Leader on
the Management Commission.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, that's fine.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Third Party, regardless
of what political strip it may be, the Third Party may only have two or three or
four Members at a given time, so it may choose to have another representative
other than the House Leader.
Are you
okay with the wording based on that?
MS. MICHAEL:
That's fine, yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
So the proposed motion: Pursuant
to Subsection 20(4) of the House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the Commission
delegates to the Speaker of the House of Assembly, in consultation with the
Government House Leader, the Official Opposition House Leader and the Third
Party representative on the Commission, the power to make decisions respecting
financial matters relating to the administration of the House of Assembly and
Statutory Offices provided that the decision is urgently required and the
Commission is unable to meet on the matter in a timely manner. A decision made
under this directive and reasons for it shall be recorded and reported back at
the next meeting of the Commission.
Do we have a mover?
Lorraine Michael; seconder, Mark Browne.
Any opposing views?
Carried.
Tab 6 is a letter of appeal for payment of an invoice from
the previous fiscal year. There is a decision required on this. The Member for
Cape St. Francis is appealing the denial of payment by
Corporate and Members' Services Division of certain allowable expenses incurred
by the Member. These expenditures were incurred in the 2015 fiscal year, but the
invoice was not submitted for payment within 30 days of the end of the year.
Ordinarily, this invoice would have been approved, but it wasn't, because of the
timelines. The details are provided in the briefing note. We have a comment from
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I have a question which
relates, I think, both to Tab 6 and Tab 7. It has nothing to do with the request
and the validity or anomaly, that kind of thing, but it is a general question
with regard to the practice in the public service sector. Would this kind of
thing be approved in the general government offices, having an expense from one
budget year being reimbursed or acknowledged in another budget year? I think
that's an important question for us: Are we following what would be practised in
the general government services?
MR. SPEAKER:
In response to that, the
Member for Cape St. Francis, I'm not sure what the conditions were or the
reasons were; but oftentimes, Members because of duties or travel or illness or
whatever may find themselves in this position
MS. MICHAEL:
I recognize that, but I'd
like to know what the general government practice is.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sure.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm not looking at any one of
the Members here or anything like that. I'd like to know the general government
practice.
MR. SPEAKER:
Absolutely.
MS. MICHAEL:
It would help me in my
discussion of these issues.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Clerk.
CLERK:
If the expense is incurred in
one fiscal year and the invoice does not arrive until the subsequent fiscal year
it happens all the time they get paid. The thing is they get paid out of the
new year fiscal
MS. MICHAEL:
That's what I needed to know.
CLERK:
It just reduces your
available funds in that year.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
CLERK:
You can't write back.
MR. SPEAKER:
The restrictions on Members
as a result of Green are, in many cases, more restrictive on Members than they
are on members of the public service.
MS. MICHAEL:
I had the answer that I
needed. The thing is this is in line with what is general government practice,
so that's all I needed to know.
MR. SPEAKER:
Well, we have to follow
Green. Green provides for 30 days. If there is an exception to that, we come to
the Management Commission. In any event, I think Mr. Davis has a comment.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think on this matter, Mr.
Speaker, there is some confusion on the matter. I checked with the Member's
office this morning to find out what has been presented to me by the Member's
office is that there was a requisition issued in February for the purchase of
these materials. These are office supplies is what it is. It's a $114 invoice.
The
materials weren't received until May 19. So that being the case, it shouldn't be
paid until this year's budget anyway, and I'm not sure that it even needs to be
here, that being the case.
MR. SPEAKER:
Possibly. That clarifies it
for sure. But even if that weren't the case, I would recommend approval, just as
Chair, because Members oftentimes find themselves in a situation where invoices,
for whatever reason, go beyond the 30 days required under Green and a Member
should not be penalized. This certainly clarifies it.
I would
open to any other comments.
MR. P. DAVIS:
In this case, it appears, Mr.
Speaker, that the materials or at least the invoice
CLERK:
Now, the invoice arrived in
May. It's quite often that the materials arrive before the invoice does. That's
not uncommon.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm just looking for the
dates on the top. It was ordered in March according to this, March 2 before the
order was received.
Anyway,
whatever the case, I think this would even fall under our current guidelines
anyway.
CLERK:
If the materials didn't
arrive until May sometimes they'll get the materials and by the time the
invoice arrives, this changes. That's fine. They have that upstairs.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay
MR. SPEAKER:
The confusion here is the
materials arrived in March; that's the reason perhaps that it's here. The
materials arrived in March but he just wasn't billed until May perhaps.
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) approval as well.
I just think the circumstances are a little bit
CLERK:
If I may.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Clerk.
CLERK:
This is not uncommon. The
Commission has approved these in the past with the cut off of one fiscal year
and the start of another.
Unfortunately, the Member, his funds are reduced for the upcoming fiscal year,
but it's one of those timing issues that you're never going to get away from.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
I have no issue with
approving it. It seems fairly standard and straightforward.
I do
have a question, though, about the letter that was submitted from his office
where there's a reference to government Members. So I'm just seeking some
clarification. I'm a little confused as to why that's there, what that means.
I'm not
sure if you can shed any light on that where it says: Please accept this as a
request to appeal for coverage for the invoice that our office received;
however, government Members did not receive invoice in their office.
CLERK:
Lots of times people don't
separate between the House of Assembly and government. It could be just an
inaccurate reference to Corporate Members'. I'm not really certain. It doesn't
really make any difference in terms of this particular invoice.
MR. BROWNE:
Okay, I was just clarifying
that it wasn't the Government Members' Office.
CLERK:
Oh no; it definitely was not.
MR. BROWNE:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, I think this is a case
where the restrictions on Members are more stringent than they are on the public
service.
I would
recommend approval. Do we have any opposing views to that?
Okay,
the proposed motion: The Commission approves the payment of the invoice
totalling $114.21 for the Member for Cape St. Francis, with the expenses to be
paid within the appropriate allocation for the 2015-16 fiscal year.
Do I
have a mover?
MR. P. DAVIS:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis; seconded by Ms.
Michael.
Item 7,
Approval for Payment of Invoices for former Members, there's a decision required
here. The House of Assembly recently received outstanding invoices related to
the previous fiscal years for the former Members for Labrador West, Lake
Melville and Conception Bay South. Approval is being requested to pay these
invoices.
Details
are provided in the briefing note and materials were provided to Members prior
to the meeting.
Do we
have any discussion?
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A fair
bit of information for Labrador West and Lake Melville, and both indicate that
these were 2014-15, 2015-16, but the invoices were not received from the vendor
until March, and they were approved expenses. I'm okay with those, under the
circumstances.
The
other one, though and they also indicate they were an invoice from a
publication for advertising. Can you tell me some details on what the invoice
was for on the other one, and also when was the invoice received from the
vendor?
CLERK:
(Inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's the one on the
Conception Bay South.
CLERK:
We don't get the detail from
them. I can run out and get the
MR. P. DAVIS:
The first two indicate what
they were for and the dates, but the next one, the one from Conception Bay
South, doesn't. So I was just curious to know before we approved it.
CLERK:
If you wish let me run out
and call upstairs and get the details, because they don't give us copies
MS. KEEFE:
They don't give us copies, but we would know that it was an eligible expense.
CLERK:
Yes, they just tell
MR. SPEAKER:
All of these are
CLERK:
They adjudicate them before.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You can give me that after
the meeting is fine.
CLERK:
Okay, not a problem.
MR. SPEAKER:
All of these here would
ordinarily have been eligible expenses. It wouldn't have been brought to the
Management Commission if it was considered to be an ineligible expense.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Did you want to postpone this
until you get the information
MR. P. DAVIS:
No, that's fine, as long as
you provide me with the information
CLERK:
I can get the details.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
As long as it was presented
there. That's fine.
CLERK:
Okay.
But it
is adjudicated upstairs before we bring it forward to the committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
So ordinarily it's an
eligible expense, but the invoice had come in late.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's fine, yes, as long as
you (inaudible)
MR. SPEAKER:
So the proposed motion: The
Commission approves the payment of invoices for the former Members for Labrador
West, Lake Melville and Conception Bay South.
Lorraine
Michael moves it.
A
seconder? Mr. Hutchings.
Any
opposing comments?
Approved.
Under
Tab 8, there's no decision required; it's financial information. The
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act require that financial information be
reported to the Commission on a regular basis. This agenda item is for reporting
purposes only. No decision is required. The financial statements provided for
the House of Assembly Service, caucus offices and the statutory offices are for
the fiscal year from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015.
The
Member Accountability and Disclosure Reports outlining expenditures for each
Member are provided for that same period. So it's just for reporting purposes.
Tab 9
MR. P. DAVIS:
If I could just
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, sorry.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I've gone through these, Mr.
Speaker. There are several pages of reports for legislative entities and
individual Member's offices and so on. There is nothing here that causes me any
concern, but I'd just like to ask the Clerk, just for your input, if there are
any issues here that you believe are raising any problems or issues or matters
that need to be dealt with in any way.
CLERK:
No, I can honestly tell you
we are the most reviewed entity in government. We do a monthly review of all of
our accounts line by line. We have two reviews normally in the year by the
Controller General where they will look at specific items. The Auditor General
reviews every year, and we have an annual review of all of our internal control
procedures. We're really tight on money most of the time, so we really, really
watch the expenditures.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay, thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments or
concerns before we move to the next tab?
There
are two items under Tab 9, the Budget Transfers Report and Budget Transfers
Request. Budget Transfers Report, there is no decision required. The Transfer of
Funds Policy, April 2008 requires only certain budget transfers to be approved
by the Commission; however, to ensure transparency, it is proposed that all
transfers of funds should be reported to the Commission.
A
briefing note provided to all Members the report of the 32 transfers, which were
approved by the Clerk of the House of Assembly and the applicable statutory
officer, or chief financial officer or designate since the last report.
Any
comments, any questions or concerns?
The
Budget Transfers Request, there is a decision required here. It's the Transfer
of Funds Policy, again April 2008, that requires the House of Assembly
Management Commission approval to transfer funds to or from the Grants and
Subsidies Main Object of expenditure.
The
Commission's approval is required for the transfer of funds to Members'
Resources Grants and Subsidies to provide operational funding for the
Independent Member for the period May 19, 2016 to March 31, 2017.
As you can see by the information provided to Members,
Government Members Caucus Grants and Subsidies is $1,200 and Members'
Resources Allowances and Assistance is $100, for a total of $1,300.
The proposed motion is that the Commission approves the
following transfer of funds.
Any questions, comments or concerns?
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) $100 a month, shouldn't that be for 11 months?
CLERK: It's
$115.67? It's not an even $100.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Oh, I thought I read here it was $100.
CLERK: That was
the base amount, but it gets changed. It's gone up every year since with a CPI
adjustment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Under Green it was $100.
CLERK: I think
it's $115.67. It's an odd number.
MR. SPEAKER:
It's $118, I think, or $115. I'm not sure.
CLERK: I know I
just signed the requisitions.
MR. P. DAVIS: I
wouldn't want to squabble over it but I just
CLERK: It's not
an even $100, I can guarantee you that.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER: Any
other comments, questions or concerns?
Do we have a mover for the motion?
Lorraine Michael.
Seconder?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'll second that.
MR. SPEAKER: Mr.
Davis.
Any opposing views?
Approved.
Tab 10, Parliamentary Precinct Order, there's a decision
required here. The Parliamentary Precinct is the area of Confederation Building
Complex under the authority and jurisdiction of the Speaker. While the concept
of the Precinct is generally understood and accepted, a definition has never
been formalized.
The Speaker sought and was granted an injunction from the
courts seeking the right of access to the precinct for MHAs and House employees
during the 2003 labour dispute. The House
of Assembly Act was amended to authorize the Speaker to issue an order
defining the parliamentary precinct. The order, which is attached, was prepared
by the Law Clerk but has not just been promulgated.
I'm looking for any comments, questions or concerns.
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL: Not
a concern, but just a question of further information, time-wise. Are we to
understand that it was in
2004 that the amendment was made, but it is only now we're getting a final
action on it?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. It's been requested of
the Speaker's office previously. For some reason, it's never been done, but it's
been asked and requested on several occasions.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
It landed on my desk as one
of the outstanding items. I guess in a nutshell if the Speaker were to look for
another injunction, a court may criticize government saying we've given you the
permission to do this. It should be clearly defined and has not yet. If we ever
need to ensure that Members and staff get to their offices, there may be a delay
because we haven't done our piece of work.
MS. MICHAEL:
Right.
To
follow up I agree with this; it is just that's what I was curious about, 12
years sitting there.
The
other has to do with some clarification. Because we have in this building the
Department of Finance and the Department of Justice, I'm just curious I mean,
it's a practical kind of thing how do we deal with the access with regard to
elevator and stairs? The stair and elevator access, both of those departments
use those as well, not just
MR. SPEAKER:
They're outside of my
precinct. I can't bring that to the Management Commission, but any House of
Assembly staff, political staff, MHAs would come under the precinct of the
Speaker.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, I realize that. Maybe I'm
not being clear. In section (g) it covers access through elevator and stairs to
areas referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) and (a), (b), (c) and
(d) referred to everything that's under the Speaker's jurisdiction. Within those
stairs and elevators, you also have people from two departments using them as
well. That's my point.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. I'll refer to the Clerk
in a second, but for the House of Assembly precinct, just as I would guarantee
access to the House or to your office, it's my responsibility to ensure that you
as a Member have access to those elevators and/or stairs in order to get to your
office or to the House in your duty as a Member.
MS. MICHAEL:
It's just a practical
question.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, go ahead.
The
Clerk.
CLERK:
Actually, there is not much
to add. The only time you would use this, essentially, is if you needed to go to
the courts to seek an injunction and get access. This basically just lays out,
in general terms, the area that's considered part of the precinct. The lobby is
shared space, the elevators are shared space, but the judge would, in granting
an order, provide reasonable access to the areas of the precinct.
MR. SPEAKER:
In the last order, the judge
had asked that this be done.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, I realize that.
MR. SPEAKER:
And it has not yet been done.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, no, I realize all that. I
just wanted to get pure clarification on how that might operate, but
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Absolutely.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
A couple of items, just one
for clarification. First of all, for clarification, and a couple of other items
besides but for clarification, this order, if I'm to understand, is simply and
strictly for the purpose of defining what the parliamentary precinct is. Is that
correct?
MR. SPEAKER:
Exactly.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It doesn't control movement
of people in any way
CLERK:
No.
MR. P. DAVIS:
it strictly describes what
the space is in the parliamentary precinct.
Okay, so
the second part of that is the commentary here references that, should an
incident occur requiring an injunction to be sought, the court might question
the lack of such an order.
Is there
any advice that we have on that? Is that our own thinking, or do we have any
CLERK:
Well, following the 2004 in
2005 the act was amended so that this order would be there. One of the things
they had to do when they sought the injunction was to go down and define the
space that the Members and staff would need reasonable access to in order to
access the House the House was sitting at the time. Anyway, it was further to
that that government brought in the amendment to the
House of Assembly Act and it said the
order had to be done.
So what
would happen now is just say if we had another strike and the House was sitting
and we needed access, well, you go down to the courts, the courts are going to
look at your legislation and say, where is this order? It's 10 years in; why
don't you have an order there? So it's an outstanding piece of business.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker's office was
given direction by the courts to produce this order. Under the recommendation of
the Law Clerk to me several months ago we don't often meet. But several months
ago the Law Clerk said that this is something that has to be looked after. It's
10 years out and has not been looked after, and we've been given clear direction
to do so and haven't.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
The
other aspect of the question I had was just on the very wording under section 2.
Because when I first read it, it says, The parliamentary precinct of the
Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador shall include: (a) the Confederation
Building, East Block, North Wing, second and third floors
. So when I first
read it, I said are they trying to say the entire Confederation Building? But
it's not. When I read it, I know it's what you're actually saying. It is
including the second and third floors in north wing in the east block of
Confederation Building.
CLERK:
Yes, because the first floor
is Queen's Printer underneath.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes.
I'm just
wondering if you should consider rewording the description to prevent any
confusion or any questioning if I read it and looked at it, is it possible
that someone else, if aware government it came a time or the House it came a
time to look for assistance from the court to make sure that the precinct was
accessible to Members and staff and so on that there wouldn't be a question on
confusion of how it's described.
The
second part of it is about access to the public. I'm not sure how that would
work. So just going through a scenario, if the intention of this was to make
sure that the House would continue to operate in case that there was some type
of disruption to access to the House, and maybe it's not part of the order that
would provide access to the general public who still want to come to the public
galleries.
CLERK:
This just defines the
physical precinct.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay, yes.
So on
the definition itself under 2(a) I have a little bit of concern with the way
that it's worded there. That may lead to some confusion or an argument
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, fair enough. I would
recommend that we reword that to say the parts of the Confederation Building
CLERK:
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I'll
ask the Law Clerk to consult with Legislative Counsel who has reviewed this as
well because part of this is drafting style.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. Basically, to clearly
define that it's the east block, north wing, second and third floors including
the House Chamber, Speaker's office, Clerk's office, caucus rooms and all
corridors and offices within this area.
CLERK:
Maybe just second and third
floors of the north wing in the east block of the Confederation Building we'll
work at it, okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
(Inaudible) I did notice on
the consultation that there was no indication that Legislative Counsel had been
consulted.
CLERK:
Oh gosh, no, everything we
do, we talk back Lorna talks back and forth to Kim all the time.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
CLERK:
What we'll do is I'll talk to
Lorna about it and we can circulate this, just for your review.
MR. SPEAKER:
Are we safe to say that the
Management Commission, it may be several months before we meet again we
approve this on the understanding that the Law Clerk will very clearly define
that it is the second and third floors of the north wing of the East Block of
the Confederation Building including the House Chamber, Speaker's Office,
Clerk's Office, caucus rooms and all corridors and offices within this area.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Absolutely.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I have some questions first.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Mr.
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
If you go back to the note,
and it was spoke to here that in 2003 the courts, in issuing an injunction, had
directed the House of Assembly to identify what the precinct would be. Here in
the note it doesn't reference any of that. It references the fact that, Following
the strike (in the Fall 2004 sitting), the
House of Assembly Act was amended to authorize the Speaker to issue an order
defining the parliamentary precinct
.
Do we have the order from the court? I'd be interested to
see exactly what it said.
CLERK: I can get
a copy of that for you. Lorna has that.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So the court definitively described or directed the House of Assembly to issue
an order?
CLERK: I don't
know about that. All I know is that the act was amended to issue the order.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes. Respectfully, I get that, but there are two different things we're talking
about here. We've said here that the court directed an order, but I understand
that you amended the act to allow it to occur. I'd just like to see what the
order said, specifically.
CLERK: I'm aware
of the injunction and that order. All I know is that legislatively the Speaker
has an obligation to issue an order, that that hasn't been done.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
From the court?
CLERK: No, the
legislation directs the definition of an order. The issue for us is that if we
had something happen that we couldn't access the building while the House was in
session, we would need to go and get an injunction to get access at that point
in time. At which point, the courts are going to look at the legislation and ask
for the order.
MR. P. DAVIS: If
I may, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS: I
heard the comment as well, that the court directed in 2004, that this process
should take place.
MS. MICHAEL: It
doesn't say that.
CLERK: No, I
didn't say that.
MR. HUTCHINGS: I
thought that was the comment that was made. That the court
CLERK: No, that
the legislation was changed to require
MR. HUTCHINGS: I
misunderstood. I thought the request for an injunction in 2003, the court in the
process
MR. SPEAKER: I
apologize. I may have been
MS. MICHAEL: It
doesn't say that.
MR. HUTCHINGS: I
know it doesn't say it but I thought the discussion, that's where it went.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. I may have misled you to some degree, unintentionally of course.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No, I'm just looking for clarity.
MR. SPEAKER: The
act was amended
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It clearly states here the act was amended but I thought the discussion, what
precipitated that being done was the fact that when the court reviewed an
injunction at a previous time, they thought it was appropriate to have a
direction given by the House.
My other question I had in regard to
definition of the parliamentary precinct, which in various jurisdictions you
have the parliamentary precinct is defined. It's not in a public building. So
that's a little different I guess in this context.
In terms
of the definition of the precinct and what it is, I just think about people that
come to the people's House to demonstrate or to have their views heard. In
defining this precinct, is there anything here that causes us concern?
Understanding that the House of Assembly needs to operate and there's reason for
doing that, but is there anything here that could restrict or cause concern to
people who want to come and protest?
MR. SPEAKER:
No, this is simply defining
the precinct.
Lorraine
Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
My reading is that the front entrance is not the precinct. It's the northeast
entrance here that's the precinct but not the front entrance. Not even the lower
entrance is in the precinct. It's only the northeast here. That was my reading
of it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
CLERK:
I don't know if you remember
after the injunction, remember the tape was
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, but it's only the
northeast entrance that's the precinct.
MR. SPEAKER:
There's nothing here that
will restrict public access. In fact, I've been here for a couple of strikes.
During the nurses' strike, during the strike of 2004, the general public were
permitted in the public galleries. They are public galleries. There is no
intention here to bar or prevent the general public from having access to the
public galleries.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No, no, I understand but
that's defined because it is the precinct. It is what you would traditionally
view as the Parliament, but I'm saying public access to doors, public access to
parking lots. People may still want to protest and have their views heard. While
they're not immediately in the precinct, as we define as the House of Assembly,
outside of that then they still want that privilege.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Nothing here restricts that;
I guess that's my question.
CLERK:
Front parking lots
(inaudible) available.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think a number of years ago
I think it was as a result of the 2004 public service strike protesting within
the lobby, I don't think it's permitted, but protesting on the front steps or on
the grounds of Confederation Building are. I think in 2004, because of incidents
that had happened at that time, I think the public demonstration within the
lobby was prohibited at that particular point.
Any
questions, any other concerns, comments?
MR. BROWNE:
So this was just for the
entrance right here, not West Block.
MR. SPEAKER:
That's correct.
CLERK:
No, it's got nothing to do
with it at all.
MR. BROWNE:
Just right here.
CLERK:
We don't have any space in
the West Block.
MR. BROWNE:
Okay.
CLERK:
The only space we have is this north wing, the fifth floor and a place in the
basement if it falls.
MR. BROWNE:
Now, for those MHAs whose
offices would be in West Block, they would have to come through this entrance.
CLERK:
They're not part of the
precinct.
MR. BROWNE:
Okay.
CLERK:
Constituency offices unless
the office is up on the fifth floor, those offices. But the West Block is not
part of the the Speaker has absolutely no authority over the West Block.
MS. MICHAEL:
But if you come in this door
and then go through
MR. BROWNE:
Walk over
MR. SPEAKER:
Actually, Sandra, on that.
Offices within the Confederation Building Complex, so I think to Mr. Browne's
point, those offices would be protected as well.
MR. BROWNE:
(Inaudible) minister or
parliamentary secretaries
CLERK:
No, not the ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
MR. BROWNE:
who would have their
constituency assistants work out of the department space. I'm just
MS. MICHAEL:
They can come in through the
northeast entrance (inaudible).
CLERK:
It's the East Block, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. P. DAVIS:
This is about what is the
precinct of the House.
CLERK:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And if your office is in a
government department, then you're part of Executive Branch and working out of
Executive Branch. You're not working out of the House of Assembly, the precinct
of the House.
MR. BROWNE:
But they'd still be able to
come in through this door?
CLERK:
Oh, yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right, exactly.
MR. P. DAVIS:
But we should remember, too,
the order's not about access. The order is define a basic order, simply defines
CLERK:
What's under the control of
the Speaker.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What is the precinct of the
House of Assembly.
CLERK:
It's where the Speaker has
authority.
For
example, when Transportation and Works comes in
MR. SPEAKER:
Can I add to that, Sandra?
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Offices within the
Confederation Building Complex not within the area referred to in paragraph (a)
which are the offices and space assigned to (i) the Government Member Caucus and
its Members, (ii) the Opposition Member Caucuses and their Members, (iii)
Independent Members; and (iv) Government, Official Opposition and other
Opposition Party Members with offices located away from the general office space
used by Members referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii).
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
So I think to be clear, I
think Members would still have access or right to their office space.
CLERK:
It wouldn't include space in
departments. What's happened before for example, in the last General Assembly,
following some by-elections, we had reason to go to Transportation and Works and
ask for a temporary space. It was allocated to Members it was in the corridor
in the East Block that runs to the West Block. We had two Members located that
was where their offices were. That doesn't happen well, I can't see it
happening now because there's sufficient space within the precinct. But because
of that situation, we need to extend the precinct to cover those offices. That
would be the exception, not the rule.
My
understanding is that the precinct does not extend to any of the offices. For
example, it doesn't extend to the Premier's office. It doesn't extend to the
Minister of Finance's office. It doesn't extend to any of the offices over in
the West Block. For example, if there was some reason Members couldn't get in,
they can get to their offices in their role as an MHA within the precinct, but
it doesn't cover access to the West Block.
MR. SPEAKER:
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm just thinking
practically. I also have a meeting of the all-party committee at 12 o'clock. I'm
going to have to leave probably but, practically speaking, I'm looking at it
from a perspective of what would make this kick in if there was a strike. It
would seem to me that you'd have a picket line at the front entrance but because
of the court injunction, there would not be a picket line and the people, under
the jurisdiction, would be able to come in.
There
will be picket lines over at the West Block. So if you're going to try and get
in over in the West Block you're crossing a picket line but if you're coming in
through the northeast entrance, you're not crossing a picket line. That,
practically speaking, is what it means to me, to get at your question.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remember the strike of
2004, for example. I was a member for Executive Council at the time and we were
advised that this entrance here was protected. We could use this entrance. Any
other entrance was not protected and we used those at our own risk.
MS. MICHAEL:
That's right.
MR. SPEAKER:
Even ministers were asked to
use this entrance here to gain access to the building.
Mr.
Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
The whole discussion brings
me back to my first point again because repeatedly here now in our discussion
I've heard reference to access. This was one of my first points I made about
access to the precinct and it was quickly pointed out this is not about access.
This is simply about defining what the precinct is.
Even in
the wording of the document itself, if you go over to 2(g) and 2(i), 2(g) says
access through elevator and stairs to areas where access and use is related to
the functioning and business of the Speaker, the House and Members. Then access
by Members and employees of the House of Assembly from the Confederation
Building East Block parking spaces referred to in paragraph (h) to the entrance
referred to in paragraph (e).
I will
go back to my earlier comment because if we're going to be referring to access
for employees, we should also be talking about access for the general public.
This is the people's House; the people have access to the House when the House
operates. When the House is opening and functioning, people should have access
to it.
Not only
that, but if this is about access to our offices and the House is not open, our
constituents should also have access and citizens should also have access to
their elected Members. This was the concern I raised very early. Several times
now I've heard talk, what about access to different offices and the House and so
on.
That
causes me a problem. That causes me an issue with this. If it's strictly about
the precinct and defining what the precinct is, we should refer to that. But at
least in two sections here it starts to talk about access by Members and
employees. I think we are negligent if we don't include access by the general
public.
CLERK:
The Speaker is right; there
are two separate concepts. This is defining the physical space. The elevators
and the entrance are not wholly contained within the precinct. It's shared
space. If something happened and we had to seek an injunction, well, at that
point in time, you are talking about physically accessing that space. That's
where you would cover off any access for the general public to park that is
something you would have to ask the courts for.
This
just defines the fact that the elevators out there, the Speaker has no authority
over those particular elevators. It's a shared, common area, but they are used
by the employees, the staff and the Members to access the areas of the precinct.
That's all it is. It's not who can come here. This is trying to define common
space.
MR. P. DAVIS:
So under 2(i) which is the
last section there so 2 reads, The parliamentary precinct of the Legislature
of Newfoundland and Labrador shall include
and I will go right down to (i)
access by Members and employees of the House of Assembly from Confederation
Building East Block parking spaces referred to in paragraph (h) to the entrance
referred to in paragraph (e). The entrance referred to in paragraph (e) is the
entrance to the doorway from the parking lot into the building. So it is the
actual access point.
My point
is if we are going to define the precinct as an area used for access by Members
and employees, this is the people's House, should we not also include in the
wording access by Members, by employees and the people of the province?
CLERK:
The Speaker only has
authority now the spaces that are allocated to Members, they are all marked
with markers. The Speaker determines who gets those parking spaces. There are
assigned areas for some of the staff and the constituency assistants and the
caucus staff in the (a), (b) and (c) sections. That's the piece that we have
some say in the allocation. Everything else is considered general space.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I understand all of that.
Madam Clerk, I appreciate that and I understand all of that. My only point is
that we're talking about access for Members and staff, and in the precinct of
the House we should also be talking about access to the general public
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
But this (i), what you're
talking about, is parking spaces, so what
MR. P. DAVIS:
Actually what it's talking
about is access from the parking spaces to the entrance from the parking lot
out here, the parking space area, to the entrance.
CLERK:
That's the space that's
currently under your authority, Speaker. Everything else is just general
parking.
MR. SPEAKER:
So I don't have any authority
or the House, the Speaker doesn't have any authority over general parking. We
can't define access from general parking. We can define your constituency
assistant has a parking permit. You have a parking permit. You're permitted to
park. That's under my jurisdiction. I get so many parking permits. I assign so
many to your caucus, so many to government caucus, so many to the Third Party
caucus. So what we're defining here is access to your parking, and access from
your parking to the building.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I understand that, and that's
about access by Members. My point is that the House of Assembly is the people's
House, and if we're describing the precinct within the House of Assembly and
within that definition we're talking about access of Members and employees my
point is, in some way, I believe we should also be talking about access to the
general public. It's every much their House as it is ours, but we don't refer to
that anywhere here, that there is space or a precinct
MR. SPEAKER:
Where else are you seeing
that, other than (i)?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Well, I see access through
internally in elevators and stairs. If we talk about government Member caucus
and its Members, Opposition Member caucus, third Members so we're talking
about the elected Members and officials who run the House, I understand that. My
thought on it is, and it's based on the discussion we're having here this
morning in large part I raised it earlier because when I read it, I saw it
focus on Members of the House and staff and officials, but should we also
consider
MR. SPEAKER:
So in the parliamentary
precinct the only place that access by Members and employees is mentioned is
(i), and the only reason that's mentioned in (i) is because you have an assigned
parking space, so the parliamentary precinct would run from your parking space
to the access to the main door out here.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right, but shouldn't there be
an entranceway for access for the general public?
CLERK:
That's a totally different
discussion. The Speaker only has authority over areas that are part of the
precinct. He has absolutely no authority over anything on that parking lot, with
the exception of space that is used by Members and staff. So if something
happened, and we were seeking access, that's something you'd have to address to
the courts at that particular time.
We don't
designate we don't have a block of spaces allocated to the House for members
of the general public now. If the Speaker went and tried to take that into the
precinct order, he would be extending his authority over physical property that
he has absolutely no authority to do.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I understand all that.
CLERK:
What?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I understand all that.
CLERK:
Okay.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I made my point so I'm not
going to delay us any further.
CLERK:
Yes, but this is a definition
of the physical space. It's not about the right of access.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's what (i) is about.
It's about access.
CLERK:
No, it's basically saying
that if we had a separate building, you would say this is the building and this
parking lot. We don't have that, so we have to try to define reasonably what
would be if we were a separate building, what we would reasonably have access
to. So we have access to a piece of the parking lot out there. Part of that
comes under the precinct.
MR. SPEAKER:
We have so many parking
spaces and what the parliamentary precinct is, between those parking spaces and
that door, is considered parliamentary precinct. I don't control the general
public parking.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I appreciate all of that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. So all we're saying is
that we have to define it somehow.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I don't disagree with that.
MR. SPEAKER:
We can change the wording, if
you want to say the parking spaces allocated to the House of Assembly.
Basically, what we're saying here is the parking spaces allocated to the House
of Assembly are part of the precinct. The space between those spaces and the
entrance is parliamentary precinct.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I understand that.
MR. SPEAKER:
So in order to clearly define
the parking spaces, its Members and employees of the House of Assembly, because
those are the parking spaces that I control. I don't control any other parking
spaces.
It
doesn't say ministers' parking here, because I don't control those. I have
absolutely no control over ministers' parking or whether or not they can get to
their parking space. I don't control the space between a minister's parking
space and an entrance. I don't control that, but parking spaces that I do
control, from those spaces to the entrance is parliamentary precinct. All it is
is describing the parking spaces that I have control over.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Well, it doesn't actually do
that because it talks about access between the parking spaces and the entrance
referred to in (e).
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, so that's considered
parliamentary precinct.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right.
MR. SPEAKER:
So the space between where
you park and the entrance is considered parliamentary precinct.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right, I understand all of
that. I'm okay with that. I don't have a problem with that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, but I don't control the
general public parking.
MR. P. DAVIS:
That's not the point I was
trying to make. I'm not going to try and make it again, but that's not the point
I was trying to make. I understand all of that. I don't disagree with that.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
If I could just in terms of
process and how it works.
At some
point in the future, if government saw a necessity to go to court looking for an
injunction, this order, if approved, would outline the framework of what is
believed by the Management Commission to be the precinct of the House of
Assembly. I guess it would be tested at that point because the court would look
at it and say, is this within the legal realm of what it should be.
Is there
any restriction then for the ask to go outside of this order, or is this order
pretty well
MR. SPEAKER:
This is not only in the event
of a strike or a (inaudible).
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No, whatever the activity
could be. It could be
MR. SPEAKER:
It's clearly defined in the
precinct of the House of Assembly. The Speaker determines who's allowed in the
Chamber for tours, whether or not pictures are allowed in the Chamber, but we
haven't clearly defined that this is part of the parliamentary precinct.
CLERK:
For example, just say
something happened and we needed to get an injunction to get access. With this
order on the books, we couldn't go down now and say: oh, and we want access via
the West Block. It's not part of the precinct. We have no right to it.
MR. SPEAKER:
The same as ministers'
parking, I have absolutely no right to
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, I understand. I'm just
talking (inaudible).
CLERK:
No, but it does limit us in
terms of what we're allowed to request.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The only area in the lobby,
for example, that I would have any say over is access to the elevators. Outside
of that, it falls under the Minister of Transportation and Works.
CLERK:
Transportation and Works,
yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay.
Do we
know if other jurisdictions have similar orders in terms of their precinct or
how it's defined?
CLERK:
They do. Now, it's only us
and the Yukon that are in shared space. It's really obvious everywhere else
because it's a separate Legislature building.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes. That's the challenge
because you're intertwined with other public access.
CLERK:
Yes. It makes a huge
difference.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
It does, yes.
CLERK:
It became a big discussion
item at the House of Commons. Remember when they were looking at security
services took care of what parts of the precinct.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Local policing versus RCMP.
CLERK:
And the common security.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's a big issue.
CLERK:
It's always an issue.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It was a big issue.
Have
they corrected it?
CLERK:
I'm not commenting on another
jurisdiction.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
CLERK:
Yes, they have actually.
They've created a new unit with the RCMP. They've done a lot of work in that
area.
MR. P. DAVIS:
A different topic anyway.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other questions, comments
or concerns?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
The
proposed motion is the Commission approves the draft parliamentary precinct
order.
Do I
have mover?
Mark
Browne.
Seconder? Is anybody willing to second this motion?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll second it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Parsons.
Any
opposing views?
Approved.
Okay.
That concludes the business of the Management Commission, unless there are other
comments, concerns or questions that Members wish to raise.
Any
other comments, questions or concerns?
CLERK:
If I might. Mr. Davis, I have an answer to that question you had on what that
purpose was for water.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Water, the invoice was
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, so one of those water
dispensing units.
CLERK:
I guess those bottles. From time to time it builds up, right.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, this probably would have
come under the ownership of the new Member for Conception Bay South in any event
because he took over that office.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Text him to see if there's
any water left.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Turn on a tap if you want
some great water in CBS.
MR. SPEAKER:
All right. Any other
questions, comments or concerns?
That
concludes the Management Commission meeting for today. I thank all Members and
the Broadcast for broadcasting and the general public for tuning in if there's
anybody who's tuned in.
Thank
you.
On
motion, meeting adjourned.