November 30, 2016
The
Management Commission met at 5:30 p.m. in the House of Assembly Chamber.
MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):
Welcome everybody
to the Management Commission meeting, I guess an extension of the meeting that
we had last week.
We have
a number of items on the agenda. Item number one was the budget transfer
request. I imagine Members have a copy of the briefing note for the budget
transfer request.
Oh,
sorry, the hon. the Clerk just reminded me to do introductions.
First
of all, I welcome Ms. Sandra Burke, Chair of the Members' Compensation Review
Committee, who's joining us here and available to provide clarification if
needed. We will ask, on my far left, Mr. Keith Hutchings to start the
introductions and we'll go down the line.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, MHA,
District of Ferryland.
MS. MICHAEL:
Lorraine Michael, MHA, St.
John's East Quidi Vidi.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Lisa Dempster, MHA,
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and Deputy Speaker in the House of Assembly.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, MHA, Burgeo
La Poile.
MS. COADY:
Siobhan Coady, MHA, St.
John's West.
MR. BROWNE:
Mark Browne, MHA, Placentia
West Bellevue.
MS. KEEFE:
Marie Keefe, Clerk's Office.
CLERK (Barnes):
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MR. SPEAKER:
And Tom Osborne, Speaker.
Okay,
so item number 1.
MR. P. DAVIS:
And Paul Davis.
MR. SPEAKER:
And Paul Davis joining us over the telephone. For anybody who's watching via
television, Mr. Davis has had an injury and he's recovering.
So item
number 1, Budget Transfer Request. There is a decision required on this
particular item. It is office renovations were required for the government-owned
building in Stephenville Crossing to accommodate the constituency office for the
Member for the District of St. George's Humber.
The
renovations were required to ensure the space met the constituency office
specifications. As the new office is located in a government-owned building,
there will be no long-term costs. In fact, there will be long-term cost savings.
The transfer of funds as required from Members' Resources Allowances to assist
the Member's resource Purchased Services to provide additional funding to
support this renovation.
The
transfer of funds policy, April 2008, requires the House of Assembly Management
Commission provide approval to the transfer of funds to or from the Grants and
Subsidies main object of expenditure.
It's
$26,500 to bring that office up to the required specifications. Do we have
somebody move the proposed motion that the Commission approves the following
transfer of funds, or?
MS. MICHAEL:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Lorraine Michael;
seconded by Mr. Andrew Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Approved.
Okay.
Any other questions or comments on that item before we move on?
We are
now at Tab 8 of last week's binder, which are the recommendations from the MCRC,
and Members will be dealing with those items tonight.
CLERK:
We have additional copies if
anyone needs them.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Anybody needing
additional copies?
On
October 28, for anybody who didn't see last week's meeting, the MCRC presented
its report on the review of the Members' salaries, pensions, severance and
allowances. The report contained 59 recommendations, which are required to be
brought to the Management Commission for review and decision.
As
outlined in subsections 16(5) and 16(6) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, the Commission shall accept to modify the
recommendations. If the Commission wishes to modify a recommendation, it does
not have the authority to exceed the maximum amounts recommended by the MCRC.
There
are 10 items under Tab 8 dealing with the various MCRC recommendations. The
first recommendation, recommendation 28, is the appointment of a subcommittee on
I&E Allowances, and that was dealt with at last week's meeting.
Today,
we're considering the remaining items under Tab 8. Recommendations 19 and 20 are
for an RFP for accommodations in the capital region. The MCRC made the following
recommendation regarding accommodations for Members when the House is in
session, or when the House is not in session.
Recommendation 19: Within 60 days of the receipt of this report, the Management
Commission shall place a request for proposals (RFP) for hotel and
apartment-type accommodations in the Capital Region. The RFP shall provide for
the Member keeping his/her room available for the duration that the House is in
Session (as that term is defined in paragraph 28 (c) of the Rules).
Item
20: Members who wish to occupy a hotel or apartment-type accommodations,
whether the House is in Session or whether the House is not in Session, will be
required to use the accommodations acquired through the RFP process.
This
recommendation was made to ensure that the best rate for Members, and Members
who wish to occupy a hotel or apartment-type accommodation, whether the House is
in Session or whether the House is not in Session, will be required to use the
accommodation selected through the RFP process.
Are
there any questions or comments?
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
When it comes to this one,
the sense that I've gathered from looking at it is that people understand and
agree with the concept of trying to get best value for the accommodations that
we're staying in.
One of
the issues that has been expressed to me, and I think actually it was expressed
in the statement last night, was the possibility of there may be some
privacy/security/safety concerns about 19 and 20 or, I guess, this process.
Having this expressed to me it's not something I thought of, but after hearing
it and it's been discussed, I do sense the merit in that.
It's
not a disagreement of the process, the value; it's figuring out how do we find a
way to find accommodations that are best value. But, at the same time, we don't
want a situation where it becomes common knowledge where a number of MHAs stay,
for a whole plethora of reasons.
MR. SPEAKER:
I agree.
Members
have brought the same concerns to me. I have had conversations with my staff,
the Clerk and so on. I think there may be a way we can accommodate this without
having everybody staying at the same location, which I agree, would create
security concerns if somebody were aware that you had 25 or 26 Members staying
in the same hotel or the same apartment complex.
Mr.
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I guess just further to
this, coming back to the fact that we want to get best value. Is there a way
that if there are options a, b and c all coming in around the same amount, would
there be the possibility of using either option? We don't want the option of I
defer to the chair of the
MR. SPEAKER:
Sandra Burke has a comment.
I think you had indicated last night you may make some amendment to this.
MS. BURKE:
In making this recommendation, it was not the Committee's intent to limit the
selection of one hotel or one apartment-type complex. Certainly, it would not be
recommended that it would be the lowest bid. We recognize there are a great
variety of accommodations in the city, so accommodations should be reasonable
accommodations for the Members, given the length of time they're going to be in
the hotels and the impact on them on their lifestyles.
So in
that regard, we would further clarify our recommendation by saying there may be
an RFP to a number there may be an accepted number of hotels or apartment-type
places within the capital region, that a number of them, as long as they're
within a reasonable spectrum of prices, would be fine.
Like I
said, the intent in not that all MHAs be in one hotel. I recognize there is a
safety issue, potentially, with that. We're trying to balance the taxpayers'
monies to ensure that taxpayers understand that there is a process that has been
gone through to ensure that the hotels that MHAs are staying in are appropriated
at the best rate.
MR. SPEAKER:
Andrew Parsons, followed by
Siobhan Coady.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I was going to say I'll
defer to Siobhan here; I've already spoken.
MS. COADY:
Thank you for this, and I
thank you for the clarification.
I think
it's very important that the clarification is there. I hear that as more of a
standing offer by appropriate levels of hotels. There has to be some choice.
There are safety and privacy concerns, so I'm glad to hear that clarification to
being a standing offer and the lowest, best price in the reasonable range I
think is a good compromise.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Any
other questions or comments?
MS. COADY:
Can I just add to that, if I
may? It has to be a range, though. We don't want all of our MHAs and for safety
and security reasons staying in two hotels. It has to be a broad enough range to
give some appropriate attention, but understanding the standing offer would be
within the same range.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
I agree.
If I
could make a recommendation on a proposed motion. We have a proposed motion here
but we'll ask Marie, in consultation with Ms. Burke, to put the appropriate
wording in to ensure that there are a number of possible locations from which
Members can choose to stay, based on an RFP.
So the
Commission accepts the recommendations 19 and 20 and directs the House officials
to issue a request for proposals for a number of hotels and/or apartment-type
accommodation in the capital region with the terms and conditions outlined in
these recommendations. Is that acceptable?
Do I
have a mover and a seconder for that motion?
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Can I ask a question?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
Keith
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So if I could, Mr. Speaker,
what you're recommending in the motion is the RFP giving a definitive rate or
a definitive range that will be used as an offer after the RFP? I think we need
to clarify.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sandra Burke.
MS. BURKE:
Again, the Committee's
intent is not to limit the Members to one accommodation, one hotel. There are a
number of hotels that provide a standing offer rate that is a reasonable range.
So if hotel A is a $120 and hotel B is a $130 and hotel C is at $140, for
example, then I would not see that, that one hotel, the lowest hotel be
selected.
All
three hotels would be available but, again, the Management Commission would
determine what hotels would be appropriated and what the reasonable range would
be, bearing in mind that these are taxpayers' dollars we're dealing with.
Does
that answer your question?
MR. SPEAKER:
Keith Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, thank you.
So the
point is the standing offers would be respective of the response of the RFP and,
from there, a decision would be made whether that was in the context of a good
execution of the taxpayers' money. So that's fine; that answers the question.
Thank
you.
CLERK:
May I ask a question?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
CLERK:
My understanding is that
Members would have the right to pick from the list, right? We would not be
sending out an RFP to reserve a block of rooms like we would for a conference.
This would be a list of hotels and Members would individually select their
preferences from that list.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CLERK:
Yes.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CLERK:
Correct.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. Members would still
have the choice from a list to choose from, so it would be the Members' choice
which location they choose.
So I
think the proposed motion that I put forward would work for that.
Do we
have a mover and a seconder for the proposed motion?
Moved
by Andrew Parsons; seconded by Keith Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendations 1 and 2, the MCRC made the following recommendations regarding
MHA salaries: 1. Commencing with the completion of the next public sector union
negotiations, MHA salaries shall be adjusted in accordance with the average
negotiated percentage adjustments related to the following collective
agreements: a. General Service Contract; b. Health Professionals Contract; c.
Registered Nurses Union Contract; d. Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association
Contract.
2. The
adjustment to MHA salaries shall occur within 30 days of implementation of the
adjustments to the last of these four collective agreements.
The
Committee made the recommendations to provide an adjustment mechanism for MHA
salaries which would be fair and in line with adjustments in the public sector
and also consider the economic climate of the province.
I did
speak with the chair of the MCRC and once the four collective agreements are
negotiated and agreed upon, within 30 days it would be an automatic
implementation within 30 days of the average. It would not be brought to the
House for a vote. It would be automatic. The implementation would be based on
the average of these four negotiated contracts. I'm correct in
MS. BURKE:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sandra Burke, okay.
Are
Members in agreement? Any comments or questions?
Mr.
Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Just a little clarity. It's
four contracts incrementally, over a period of time these could be settled in
regard to a new collective agreement. Is there a period of time that you would
average the four out or would you wait an extended period of time? Then, at that
time, would it be retroactive to when the first contract I just need some
clarity in regard to your thoughts on that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Sandra
Burke, if you could clarify.
MS. BURKE:
As the recommendations indicate, we had chosen those particular contracts
because they were usually negotiated between March and June of each period. Now,
granted, there may be some time in terms of how they're finally negotiated, but
our thought would be is that the average of those the implementation of any
adjustments in salaries would occur when the last contract was done.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. So if I understand Mr.
Hutchings's question, the effective date of the implementation of the increase
of the average of those four public sector unions would be the
MS. BURKE:
The last.
MR. SPEAKER:
The implementation date of
the last contract?
MS. BURKE:
Right. For example, if the
RNC Association contract was the last one to be negotiated and settled of the
four that are there, that date would be the implementation date for the MHAs
adjustments.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. So it's the date of
the negotiated contract not the date of the implementation of the wage for the
last, is it?
MS. BURKE:
It would be the date of the
contract when it's negotiated.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MS. BURKE:
When the contract is
settled, it's 30 days from there, the MHAs would have their
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. I think it's important
to make sure that that's clear. So if I'm clear, you can correct me Ms. Burke if
I'm not, but the implementation date would be the date of the agreement of the
last negotiated contract.
MS. BURKE:
Right.
MR. SPEAKER:
Correct, okay.
So are
all Members Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I hope
everybody can hear me okay. I apologize for the echo a few minutes ago. There
was a bit of a delay between how I can hear you and how I can speak to you.
I just
raise one matter pertaining to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association.
When their contracts are done, what's been in place for maybe the last 10 years,
is that their contracts don't include specifics of their negotiated increases;
in fact, no negotiated increases at the time of signing the contract. The
increases are implemented on an annual basis, based on a formula which is
determined based on existence of other contracts throughout the country, of
March 31 of each year.
Sometimes and the minister can speak to this probably a little bit further
than I can and get us more up to date than I can. But sometimes it may take two
or three months before the actual salary for the members of the RNC Association
are known. So it may take until June, for example, before it's known what those
increases would be effective April 1, and that's done an annual basis.
I'm
wondering if the intent of the committee was to do this on an annual basis, and,
if so, we could structure it so the RNC Association annual increases would be
included. Of course, they won't be known at the time of signing. So was the
intention to do it on annual basis or just do it once when the contracts are
signed?
MR. SPEAKER:
I'll ask the question to Ms.
Burke as well. For example, a public sector union, if the negotiated wage and
I'm not putting out any suggestions here or have any knowledge of what but if
a public sector negotiation is zero, zero, two and two, for example, that would
be factored in so that the increase to MHA salaries would then be zero, zero,
two and two. That calculation for that one union would factor in we'd base it
on an annual basis of the average increase of the four unions for each of those
years.
MS. BURKE:
Each year. So if it's zero, zero, two, two for the general service, and if it
was one, one, one, one for the health, then you would average those contracts
each year.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MS. BURKE:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
So if you had two at zero
and two at one, then the average
MS. BURKE:
Is half.
MR. SPEAKER:
would be 0.5 of a per
cent.
MS. BURKE:
Right, over the year.
MR. SPEAKER:
Over the year.
Does
that answer your question, Mr. Davis?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, thank you.
I think
it does, but just to point out, the increases for that particular contract are
not known until quite often early summer. The minister can comment. I think it
was early June or even July this year before it was finalized, what the
calculations were going to finalize and approve.
So as
long as we realize, and the process would include all four. If it's done on an
annual basis, there may be a little bit of work to go back to make it effective
from, for example, April 1 each year or whatever date is chosen. But as long as
it's realized that one's done a little bit differently, it's not done on the
signing of the contract.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. Mr. Davis, there may
be, in some cases, a lag, for example, with the RNC Association in determining
what that raise is.
For
example, if the RNC would be the last one, and it's effective the signing date
of the contract, but it takes the RNC Association a month or two. Presumably,
their increases would be retroactive to the date of the contract. So,
presumably, Members' increases would be retroactive to the date of the contract
as well.
Is that
correct, Ms. Burke?
MS. BURKE:
That's exactly right.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. So does that answer
your question?
MR. P. DAVIS:
It does, but now the
contract with the RNC expires in June and salary becomes effective in April. But
I'm sure we can work that out, as long as it's understood that I think we have
an understanding there.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I just wanted to make sure
that what the intention of the committee was would fit the circumstances,
bearing in mind that the RNC do not negotiate their salaries, which is
referenced in (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. Their contract is done
a little differently than the public sector union. That's understood. I guess
the thing is the date of the agreement is the effective date of the calculation.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, I think we're saying
the same thing.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, okay.
With
that being said, any other questions or comments?
Siobhan
Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much.
I
support the concept of this. I know as a former Member of Parliament, the Member
of Parliament is pegged to an indicator as well. So I'm supportive of the
indicator.
I would
note for the public, MHAs have not received any increase in their salary since
2008 and currently rank ninth. That's in the report. I just wanted to point it
out so the general public is aware of where we rank and the current salary
levels.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Lorna
Proudfoot.
MS. PROUDFOOT:
There will be an amendment that is required to the act because right now the act
states a fixed amount. What the amendment would be is not the new amount. It
would be the manner of fixing the amount.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, that's understood. That
would probably be brought in in the spring session or whenever officials,
legislation writers write the legislation.
Okay.
If there are no further questions or comments, the proposed motion would be:
The Commission accepts recommendations 1 & 2 and direct that MHA salaries shall
be adjusted in accordance with those recommendations.
Do we
have a mover and a seconder?
Moved
by Lorraine Michael; seconded by Keith Hutchings.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Okay,
item 4, Recommendations 3-6, Legislative Office Holder Salaries. The MCRC made
the following recommendations regarding salaries paid to legislative office
holder positions:
3.
Legislative Office salaries shall not be adjusted in accordance with the
Committee recommendations regarding MHA salaries during the 48th General
Assembly;
4.
Subsection 12(1) of the Act be amended to change the salaries of the following
Legislative Offices, effective April 1, 2017: a. Speaker of the House $48,665;
b. Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees $12,166; c. Leader of the Official
Opposition $48,665; d. Opposition House Leader $24,330; e. Leader of the
Third Party $24,330; f. Chair of the Public Accounts Committee $12,166; g.
Vice-Chair of the Public Accounts Committee $9,300.
5.
Subsection 12(1) of the Act be amended such that there be no salary for the
following Legislative Offices, effective April 1, 2017: a. Deputy Chair of
Committees; b. the Deputy Opposition House Leader; c. Party Whip; and d. Caucus
Chair.
6.
Subsection 12(1) of the Act be amended to add a Legislative Office position and
salary as follows: a. Third Party House Leader $12,166.
So all
of these following positions, I guess for anybody watching at home, have been
decreased. We won't go into what they were but they've been decreased with the
exception of the Third Party House Leader. Currently, the Third Party Leader
doesn't sit in the House and that salary wouldn't apply unless that changes.
Any
comments or questions?
Mark
Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I note
that, as you just stated, the majority of these positions will be facing mostly
a 10 per cent cut with the exception of the position of the Leader of the Third
Party. I just have a question on number 6: Subsection 12(1) of the Act be
amended to add a Legislative Office position and salary as follows which is the
Third Party House Leader. Am I correct in saying that's not a position at
present?
MR. SPEAKER:
No, that position currently
isn't covered under the act.
MR. BROWNE:
Okay.
Is that
position recognized in the Standing Orders? Would that have any bearing on
attaching a salary to it?
MR. SPEAKER:
Sandra?
MS. BURKE:
No. Neither is the Deputy
Chair of Committees position recognized, but we pay that position. We go by
what's outlined in the legislation.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other comments or
questions?
Mark
Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
So, Mr. Speaker, I guess my
question would be just for clarity for the purpose of those watching at home
and Members of the Committee given that the majority of these positions are
seeing a cut, what was the rationale behind the creation of that position?
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm not sure.
Ms.
Burke.
MS. BURKE:
The rationales for all of
the recommendations that are made by the Committee are set out in quite a lot of
detail in the report. In relation to this particular legislative office
position, if you turn to page 35 at the bottom: Upon review of the various
Legislative roles, we noted that there is no role for a Third Party House
Leader. Similar to the role of the Opposition House Leader, we have concluded
that a Third Party House Leader would contribute towards the effective
governance of the province. As a Third Party, the Leader would not be entitled
to the same remuneration as the Opposition House Leader. Therefore, we're
recommending the salary that we did.
So in
terms of striking balance in the House with respect to the House Leader
positions, we felt that it would be appropriate to create that position for the
Third Party.
MR. SPEAKER:
Lorraine Michael.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
making this statement totally objectively because I don't care who sits in the
Third Party. With the changes to the Party Whip and caucus Chair, where there is
no money, those salaries would be taken away which I absolutely agree with.
My
understanding because I think there's something about this in your rationale
as well in another section. My understanding is that the Commission realized
that with a Third Party, if there's also no Whip and there's no caucus Chair,
that the Third Party would be no position would be getting any money for the
work that's being done that is also being done by the other parties. I
understand that is the rationale.
Based
on that, I certainly see the reasoning for it. The Leader of the Third Party, no
matter who it is, is in charge of the running of that party in the House of
Assembly, meets with the Government House Leader and the Opposition House
Leader, is part of the decision making that goes on with regard to what's
happening in the House and the role of the party in the House.
So
that's my understanding of the rationale. It doesn't matter to me who's in the
position. I hope you do realize I am speaking objectively here.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mark Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Chair and I thank Ms. Michael for her comments of clarification.
My
questions were not rooted in anything but trying to seek a clearer
understanding. I noticed, as the report laid out every other position, that one
wasn't as well laid out as the other positions.
I thank
the Chair and Ms. Michael for that clarification. I guess as a new Member I just
wanted to make sure that those not a position recognized in Standing Orders,
that we're doing something that was on the up and up.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Parsons?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'd like to ask Ms. Burke
how come there's no raise for the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
And Deputy.
MR. SPEAKER:
Any other questions or
comments?
I
should point out, in the event and I'm not suggesting that the Third Party
would have just one Member, it would just be, presumably, the Leader of the
Opposition. Unless the Leader is not an elected Member, at which point the
Member would undoubtedly be the House Leader.
Any
other questions or comments?
Okay,
the proposed motion is that the Commission accepts Recommendations 19 and 20 and
directs the officials sorry. Yeah, the Commission accepts Recommendation 3
that the legislative office salaries shall not be adjusted in accordance with
the Committee recommendations regarding MHA salaries during the 48th General
Assembly.
Do I
have a mover and a seconder?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion
2, the Commission accepts Recommendation 4 that: Subsection 12(1) of the Act be
amended to change the salaries of the following Legislative Offices, effective
April 1, 2017: a. Speaker of the House $48,665; b. Deputy Speaker and Chair of
Committees $12,166; c. Leader of the Official Opposition $48,665; d.
Opposition House Leader $24,330; e. Leader of the Third Party $24,330; f.
Chair of the Public Accounts Committee $12,166; g. Vice-Chair of the Public
Accounts Committee $9,300.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just one question, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I take it that under
Recommendation 6, would the effective date be the same as it is for
Recommendation 5 and 4 even though it's not indicated, or it would be immediate?
MR. SPEAKER:
That would be the House
Leader for the Third Party?
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes. There are effective
dates under Recommendation 4 and 5, just not for 6. I just thought we should
clarify that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
That would be April 1 as
well.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, so I'll add that to
the motion once we get to that. Motion 2 would be these positions.
Do we
have a mover and a seconder?
Moved
by Lorraine Michael.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded by Mr. Davis.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion
3 that the Commission accepts Recommendation 5 that: Subsection 12(1) of the
Act be amended such that there would be no salary for the following Legislative
Offices, effective April 1, 2017: a. Deputy Chair of Committees' b. Deputy
Opposition House Leader; c. Party Whip; and d. Caucus Chair.
Do I
have a mover and a seconder?
Moved
by Mr. Hutchings; seconded by Mr. Parsons.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion
4, the Commission adopts Recommendation 6 that Subsection 12(1) of the act be
amended to add a legislative office position, effective April 1, 2017, with a
salary as follows: Third Party House Leader, $12,166.
Do we
have a mover and a seconder?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
That's the Third Party House
Leader, effective April 1.
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendation 10, 11 and 17, Seasonal and Special Occasion Cards & Greetings;
Office Operations, Supplies & Communications: The 2016 MCRC made the following
recommendation respecting seasonal and special occasion cards and greetings
(under Office Operations, Supplies & Communications): 10. The recovery of
expenses incurred for seasonal and special occasion cards is prohibited.
Paragraph 24(j) of the Rules is to be repealed. 11. Recovery of expenses
incurred for advertising of messages of welcome, greetings and congratulations
is prohibited, except for the recognition of national, provincial, constituency
level weeks, days and events. Members may still include messages of welcome,
greetings and congratulations in MHA newsletters.
The
2016 MCRC recommends that Section 24 of the Rules be amended such that recovery
of expenses (postage, photography, printing, etc.) incurred for seasonal and
special occasion cards be prohibited. It also recommends that recovery of
expenses for advertising of messages of welcome, greetings and congratulations
be prohibited, except for those events identified in recommendation 11.
The
rationale is that seasonal greetings and the marking of special events can be
accommodated in MHA newsletters, or should come from an MHA's personal resources
should he/she wish to send seasonal/special occasion cards or greetings.
Although the Committee has recommended that some expenses under this category
of allowances be eliminated, the Committee recommends that the allowance amount
of $12,000 remain the same.
Are
there any questions or comments?
Siobhan
Coady.
MS. COADY:
This is to the Chair; it
just occurred to me, the cap remaining at $12,000, is that taking into
consideration the change in structure of the new configuration for the MHA
districts?
I'm
sure you've discussed it. Could you just elaborate on that?
Thank
you.
MS. BURKE:
It doesn't primarily take into account the changes in the districts, but we felt
that $12,000 would accommodate the change in the districts, so it wasn't our
only factor. The primary driver in leaving the allowance as it was, with the
decrease in the advertising and the special occasion cards, we recognized in the
production of newsletters, for example, postage would still be required. So
that's why we left it at that level.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is a valid point;
districts are approximately 20 per cent larger, I think, or 15 to 20 per cent
larger. Obviously, there will be a greater number of newsletters and a greater
expense to get this newsletter distributed. There may be other expenses and so
on. It's perhaps too early to tell. We're a year in and I'm not sure if the
accounting has been done to accommodate I'll ask the Clerk, on the allowances,
has there been an increase in allowances based on
CLERK:
I don't have that
information. I have the information in that particular allowance category
updated to the end of October. I know nobody has exhausted their funds in that
particular allowance. It's a capped allowance so we do monitor that. Actually,
there are only a couple of Members who use the full allocation anyway. There's
usually some residual funds left in everybody's allowance.
I can
certainly get that information for you either after the meeting or in the
morning because I do update it regularly.
MR. SPEAKER:
We have almost half of the
fiscal year remaining.
CLERK:
We have seven months.
MR. SPEAKER:
I wouldn't want to see
Members shortchanged because of an increase in their district size. While
greeting cards and so on are no longer permitted, there are an additional number
of newsletters and the cost of getting those newsletters distributed.
Prior
to recognizing Ms. Burke, I wonder is there a way within the MCRC
recommendation, should it be that because of the increase in district sizes that
the $12,000 allowance should need to be adjusted? Is there a way we can make an
allowance for that under your recommendation?
MS. BURKE:
Before I address that particular issue, when we looked at the Office Operations,
Supplies & Communications, we noted that in each fiscal year, from 2007 onward,
Members, generally speaking, have not utilized all of this allowance in any
event.
This is
a budgeting concern, I think, for the House. We haven't been clear as to why all
of the allowances have not been utilized. So it was the Committee's view that
$12,000 seemed an appropriate level, despite the fact that there was an increase
in the district sizes, given that MHAs were not using the full amount of the
allowance that was given to them in any event.
Again,
this is a Management Commission issue. If it is shown that a Member has
reasonably used his allowance in terms of sending out newsletters, things of
that nature, in compliance with the legislation and due to the increased size in
the district, there's a legitimate need to increase that allowance for that
particular district, then similar to what we've done with the I&E, I would see
no issue with the Management Commission dealing with that issue.
Again,
the legislation allows the Commission to review these matters as long as it's
done in a thoughtful way that is realizing that these are taxpayers' dollars.
MR. SPEAKER:
I just wanted to clarify
where the Commission had recommended that the allowance remain at $12,000, I
wanted to ensure that the Management Commission still chances are maybe it's
adequate based on the fact that Members hadn't used it in the past, but I
wouldn't want to find out in six or eight months from now that we're capped at
$12,000 for the remainder of the General Assembly with no way of changing it.
If
there's a particular district because of the change in geography and population,
if the Management Commission is equipped with the ability to deal with that
district over the course of the next three years
MS. BURKE:
We didn't have the time to
review the resources in relation to the districts. We felt comfortable with the
$12,000 cap because of the fact that the Members had not used a significant
amount. I mean, it's a substantial amount that they hadn't used in previous
years. But, as I said, it's in my view that the Commission can, in accordance
with the legislation, deal with these issues, if there is a rationale put to the
Commission by each Member to add to that
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, that answers the
question.
My
concern was that it wouldn't be carved in stone, capped at $12,000, should there
be a need to review it.
MS. BURKE:
As long as it's in
contemplation with the legislation
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, absolutely.
MS. BURKE:
and the restrictions placed on the Management Commission in dealing with those
changes, there shouldn't be an issue.
MR. SPEAKER:
Perfect. I know some of the
rural districts may need to be looked at, so I just wanted to make sure that
those particular Members wouldn't have been put at a disadvantage. The urban
Members, such as myself, generally don't require that amount, but there are some
Members that it may affect.
Any
questions?
Mark
Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just
for the record, this allowance, in my case for instance, probably much of it
would be unused. I guess as a new Member, I have been seeing how things go as we
move along. I wanted to put out a newsletter to my district, which I have not
done yet, so there's probably a large portion of mine that is unspent.
To your
comments, for those of us in large, rural districts, it's very difficult to be
in 20 places at once, so we do rely on informing our constituents as to what's
happening, what we're doing and how to contact us. So I think it would be
prudent and wise to have a review done of the allowance there to ensure that in
view of the larger districts that it's an amount that is befitting of those
larger districts.
MR. SPEAKER:
Perfect.
Any
other comments or questions?
Okay.
The
proposed motion is, The Commission accepts recommendation 10 and 11 that the
recovery of expenses incurred for seasonal and special occasion cards and
messages of welcome, greetings and congratulations are prohibited.
Do we
have a mover and seconder?
Moved
by Lorraine Michael; seconded by Keith Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion
2, the proposed motion is that the Commission accepts recommendation 17 that the
Office Operations, Supplies & Communications capped at $12,000, inclusive of
HST. We just dealt with that. That would probably work but I mean if there is a
need to adjust it, the Management Commission has the ability to adjust it, which
is the reason I raised it.
So
should we put that in the wording of the motion?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Not necessary. Okay.
Do I
have a mover and seconder?
Moved
by Andrew Parsons; seconded by Keith Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendation 16 Promotional Items. The 2016 MCRC made the following
recommendation with respect to promotional items supplied to MHAs by the House
of Assembly: 16. Upon determination by the HOA as to the promotional items it
has budgeted, such promotional items shall be made available to the MHAs based
on the population in the respective districts, on a pro rata basis.
The
HOA supplies MHAs with promotional items for use in districts. Such materials
including lapel pins, provincial flags, certificates, certificate holders,
business cards and letterhead
. The HOA, as with Government departments, must
budget its needs. While it is important that all Members have access to
promotional items provided by the HOA, it is equally important to accept that
there are a limited means by which such material can be supplied.
The
MCRC recommends that upon determination by the HOA as to the promotional items
it has budgeted, such promotional items shall be made available to MHAs based on
the population for their district
.
Are
there any questions or comments?
The
proposed recommendation is that: The Commission accepts recommendation 16 that,
upon determination by the HOA as to the promotional items it has budgeted, such
promotional items shall be made available to the MHAs based on the population in
their respective districts, on a pro rata basis.
MR. BROWNE:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moved by Mark Browne;
seconded by Lorraine Michael.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendation 18 item seven in your books Definition of Private
Accommodations.
The
2016 MCRC made the following recommendation regarding the definition of private
accommodations (under Travel and Living Allowance): 18. Paragraph 28(e)'Private
Accommodations' shall be amended to delete the reference to Members' children.
The
2016 MCRC is recommending that the definition of private accommodations be
amended to remove the reference to Members' children, allowing them to claim the
nightly per diem for private accommodations when staying with their children.
Are
there any questions or comments?
The
proposed motion is: The Commission accepts recommendation 18 that Paragraph
28(e) 'Private Accommodation' shall be amended to delete the reference to
Members' children.
Do I
have a mover?
Moved
by Lorraine Michael; seconded by Andrew Parsons.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Recommendation 21 Annual Lump Sum for Temporary Accommodations in Capital
Region.
The
2016 MCRC made the following recommendation regarding the option for Members to
choose an annual lump sum for temporary accommodations in the Capital Region
(under Travel and Living Allowance):
21. A
Member may opt to receive a lump sum for his/her accommodations rather than
avail of the Secondary Accommodation, Private Accommodation or Temporary
Accommodation: a. such lump sum shall be a taxable benefit to the Member; b.
shall apply to the Capital Region only, for the entire fiscal year, whether the
House in Session or the House not in Session; c. the Member must elect this
option no later than 30 days before the commencement of the fiscal year. If
he/she does not so elect, the Member will not be permitted this option and shall
have to choose from the Secondary Accommodation, Private Residence or Temporary
Accommodation options;
d. The
lump sum will be calculated as follow: i. Using the average number of days the
House was in Session calculated over an 8 year period (2008/09 to 2015/16 the
average sitting days of the House was 51) multiplied by ii. the Temporary
Accommodation rate (at the RFP price). e. the Member may not seek other
accommodation expense reimbursement for the remainder of that fiscal year; f. if
the Member leaves office prior to the end of the fiscal year, the Member must
repay the lump sum on a pro rata basis.
Andrew
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Just two questions, one of
them might be not even relevant. I'm just wondering now I'm in here, I guess,
in my ministerial role quite a bit. This doesn't apply to that, obviously.
MR. SPEAKER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Okay. I just wanted to
double check because that would be not good.
The
second part, now that we've announced we are moving to a parliamentary calendar,
is there a way that we can link that in where we have when that hand goes up,
I'm going to sit down.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sandra Burke.
MS. BURKE:
I wish I had that power all the time.
Yes, I
was advised there is a new Standing Order, I believe, that sets the number of
parliamentary days. When we wrote the report we were not aware of that. So I
think it would be reasonable, instead of saying using the average number of days
the House is in session calculated over an 8-year period that we use whatever
the Standing Orders determine.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The Standing Order also says
that, I guess, in my role as Government House Leader, I set the calendar by Jan.
31, theoretically. So that will allow the spring and the fall, but we all know
that sometimes it goes later for various reasons. We don't want a situation
where we have to sit two extra weeks to deal with an emergency and we end up,
because of the way this is worded, that Members can't be compensated because I
understand what we're trying to do here. I just want to make sure we word it,
because I agree with the principle.
MR. SPEAKER:
If I could make a
recommendation, based on the new information that there will be a sitting
calendar, are we able to tie the recommendation to the number of the days in the
sitting calendar or the number of days sat in that particular year, because we
know there's going to be a calendar with a set number of days. But if there's an
emergency debate, or if for some reason I know that over the years Members
have been called in from time to time for debates that are not anticipated.
MS. MICHAEL: (Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Or business is not completed
and you need to extend
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) where I had
anticipated that perhaps I might be done by December 8, it's not going to
happen, out of my control. The fact is there's legislation coming in and you
have to deal with that. We might be here until the 15th; we might be here until
the 20th. That's not anybody else's fault except perhaps mine or government's.
It's one of those things; I don't think we want more than what we should get,
but I also don't think Members should be out of pocket for nights that are out
of their control because the House is in session.
So I
agree with the concept completely, which is a lump sum and it should be based on
we have to find some kind of calculation where we can accommodate the nights
that are here and if it goes up, if it goes down, nobody should get more or
less. It should be what it is. I think I'm making sense.
MR. SPEAKER:
You are, yes, absolutely.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Davis, go ahead.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Just if I can add another nuance to that. Earlier I think we made a decision
that on the temporary accommodation rate it could be actually a variety of rates
or a level of rates. Under d.ii. it references, the Temporary Accommodation
rate (at the RFP price). So if we have a variety of prices in the RFP, does Ms.
Burke have a recommendation of how we would determine what that rate would be?
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. One second.
Ms.
Burke.
MS. BURKE:
Just bear with me a moment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
You'll
have to hold your question for a moment, Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
No problem.
MR. SPEAKER:
Siobhan Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you.
I think
my colleague is making a very valuable point. Justice Green, in his Green
Report, did specifically say he did not want to cause undue hardship to MHAs so
that we don't discourage people to run for politics. I think this is in that
spirit, to make sure that we accommodate when the House is sitting that they
have accommodation.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Mr.
Davis had a question for you before you Mr. Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sorry,
I didn't realize she was doing some other work there.
In our
earlier discussion on the temporary rate or temporary accommodations, sorry
we discussed that there could be a variety of rates. There could be two or three
or four different temporary accommodations that have been accepted through an
RFP. I'm just wondering if she had a recommendation on how you would actually
set the RFP price or the temporary accommodation rate?
MS. BURKE:
I would think that it would
be at the average price.
MR. SPEAKER:
The average, yes.
MS. BURKE:
And in relation to Mr.
Parsons's question, what I would see happening there is if a Member wished to
opt for this option they would have to make their claim once they knew what the
set parliamentary calendar was and then if there were additional days, then
those additional days would be paid at the RFP rate.
MR. SPEAKER:
And if there are less days
it would be deducted at the RFP rate.
MS. BURKE:
No, because the
parliamentary calendar is set. You're actually sitting that number of days.
Because we're not actually sitting that number of days, we're back to the
recommendation.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes. It is possible, though,
that we could sit fewer days than the parliamentary calendar.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would suggest that will be
again, time will tell. I'm going to suggest that would be extremely rare in
that most situations the House goes longer. I haven't seen a situation where
there has been no calendar in place but I haven't seen a situation where we sit
less than what we anticipated, it is always more.
I think
the principle is getting through here, that we're all on the same page with the
principle, and if that situation arises there must be some kind of way to have a
claw back.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Could I
ask Ms. Burke, if you could modify your recommendation to reflect what you just
said for the ease of the motion?
The
proposed motion is that the Commission accepts Recommendation 21, that Members
be provided the option to choose an annual lump sum for temporary accommodations
in the capital region under Travel and Living Allowance with the terms and
conditions provided for in that recommendation.
Ms.
Burke is going to modify her recommendation to reflect what we just discussed.
MS. BURKE:
Okay, so we can take that
and say: Except that the lump sum shall be calculated based upon the number of
days in the sitting calendar, or the actual number of days sat, and the average
rate of temporary accommodations resulting from the RFP. So we're basing it on
the actual number of days sat.
The
Member has to make the claim first. There has to be a deadline by which the
Member must make the claim. Then, they would be provided with the lump sum based
upon the parliamentary calendar. So the lump sum will be calculated based on the
number of days in the sitting calendar.
If the
House sits longer than the parliamentary sitting calendar, then those additional
days shall be paid at the average rate of the temporary accommodations in the
RFP. If the number of sitting days is less than the parliamentary calendar, then
the Member will have to repay the amount of money based upon the average RFP
rate.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That makes sense to me. I
don't know what my colleagues feel. I think we're achieving the principle here.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sandra Barnes.
CLERK:
Ms. Michael wants to speak
as well.
I just
note that the amendments to the Standing Orders, which were passed by the House,
are provisional. So I would probably have to include the formula and the rule
under the Standing Orders. We just can't make the assumption that the
parliamentary calendar will be in place.
MS. COADY:
We'll have to make it
subject to.
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
I think Lorraine Michael was
next.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you.
Just to
answer the Chair's question, yes, it makes sense to me. My one concern would be
well, I think this takes care of it actually if we use the siting calendar
as the base, then people can apply immediately for the allowance. I think that's
what's important, so that people aren't paying out of pocket without having the
allowance.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have a potential proposed
motion: The Commission accepts Recommendation 21 that Members be provided the
option to choose an annual lump sum for temporary accommodations based on the
parliamentary calendar in the capital region under Travel and Living Allowance.
Should the number of days be greater than the parliamentary calendar, the rate
will be adjusted based on the RFP rate and subject to the terms and conditions
provided for in the recommendation. Does that make sense?
We have
another: The Commission accepts Recommendation 21 that Members be provided the
option to choose an annual lump sum for temporary accommodations in the capital
region under Travel and Living Allowance, with the terms and conditions provided
for in that recommendation, except that lump sum will be calculated based on the
number of sitting I would change that to say, based on the parliamentary
calendar or the actual number of days sat and the average rate. I'm going to go
back to mine. I'm going to read that again.
The
Commission accepts Recommendation 21 that the Members be provided the option to
choose an annual lump sum for temporary accommodations based on the
parliamentary calendar in the capital region under Travel and Living Allowance.
Should the number of days be greater than the parliamentary calendar, the rate
will be adjusted based on the RFP rate and subject to the terms and conditions
provided for in the recommendation. Does that make sense to everybody?
Lorna.
MS. PROUDFOOT:
There was no reference to should the days be fewer. That needs to be added:
should the days be fewer.
MR. SPEAKER:
The last part of that,
should the number of days be greater than or fewer than the parliamentary
calendar, the rate will be adjusted based on the RFP rate.
That
covers us off in the event that it is fewer. I know it's unlikely.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I always get worried when
we're debating multiple motions. I want this done just as well as everybody, but
even if it takes us to come back and this is not about Ms. Burke coming back.
I realize we're here, I think we're on the same page, and maybe Ms. Burke can
look at the because we're going to have lots of Management Commission meetings
where Ms. Burke is not here.
Even if
we come back in a week from now and have a motion that we have some time,
instead of sitting here and doing something where we might even get a word
wrong. Does that make sense? Because we're all on the same page, it's just doing
the wording correctly.
MR. SPEAKER:
Let's have the motion
written clearly so that everybody can read it. I'm going to propose that we sit
again next Wednesday to deal with other recommendations. We'll defer this
particular recommendation until next Wednesday, have it put in writing so that
all Members can see the writing and base their decision on what's in writing.
Do we
have an agreement on that?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against?
Carried.
Recommendation 24, Mileage Allowance within Commuting Distance. The MCRC made
the following recommendations regarding Members' ability to claim mileage
allowance when travelling within commuting distance (60 km zone). 24. There will
be no mileage allowance for any Member travelling within the 60 km zone
(commuting distance). This restriction does not apply to Intra/Extra
Constituency Allowance.
Currently Members who live within commuting distance may not claim mileage and
those who reside outside commuting distance may claim mileage. The view of the
Committee was that there is little fairness between Members who are 'close' to
the commuting distance, and people in this province travel far greater distances
to and from their place of work and receive no benefit for such travel.
The
Committee recommended that there be no mileage allowance for any Member
travelling with 60 km zone, which they felt would place all Members who travel
within the 60 km zone on the same footing.
Any
comments or questions?
Andrew
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I sort of have been looking
at this one, Recommendation 24, and I looked at Recommendation 27 at the same
time. That's how I've been dealing with it; Recommendation 27 being the
allowance there. I think there's been some concern expressed about
Recommendation 24.
Maybe I
don't understand it correctly. Maybe it is not in my head the right way. So if I
travel from my home to St. John's for House of Assembly or not House of
Assembly, for whatever reason, once you hit the 60 km zone, then it's not
claimable I guess is the word am I right there?
MR. SPEAKER:
Ms. Burke.
MS. BURKE:
I am going to have to defer
to the Clerk because it's late and I had a long day. Maybe we could defer this
to the following week, but with my briefing with the Members last night, I need
to be absolutely clear about I&E and the 60 km zone because it's late, so I'm
getting quite tired.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm going to make a
recommendation I mean, Ms. Burke wants to do an additional piece of work on
this particular recommendation.
MS. BURKE:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
I know Members have
questions; we'll defer this particular recommendation until next week as well.
All Members in agreement?
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) I think there is
a relation there.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MS. BURKE:
I am not sure that there is,
but I think that is a good if you want to have them at the same time, that's
fine.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mr. Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
In regard to Recommendation
27, I'll just share my personal experience. My district is part capital region
and also part outside the capital region. So there are some nuances to that as
well that I'd like to have a look at or anybody else who is that position.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
Recommendation 24 and 27 are deferred until next week.
Do we
have agreement that the Management Commission will meet again at 5:30 p.m. next
Wednesday?
All
those in agreement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
5:15 p.m.?
MR. A. PARSONS:
The only issue with 5:15
p.m. is that (inaudible).
CLERK:
Usually we can figure them
out in 15 to 20 minutes. It's just if they run into a little hiccup, we'll have
to push it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Let's say 5:30 (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
So the Management Commission
is meeting next Wednesday at 5:30 p.m.
All
those in agreement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
That
concludes our business for today. Do we have any other comments or questions
before I put a motion to adjourn?
Do we
have a motion to adjourn?
Moved
by Mr. Parsons; seconded by Mr. Hutchings.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
This meeting is now
adjourned.
On
motion, meeting adjourned.