September 27, 2018
House of Assembly Management Commission
No. 69
The
Management Commission met at 3:50 p.m. in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Okay, I'd like to call this meeting of the Management Commission to order. I
thank all the Members for attending. And I guess I'll start by introducing
myself.
I'm
Perry Trimper, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, and by default in that
position I am also the Chair of the Management Commission.
And
I'll turn to my left and we'll go around the table.
MS. RUSSELL:
Bobbi Russell, Policy and Communications Officer, House of Assembly.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Keith Hutchings, MHA,
District of Ferryland.
MS. COADY:
Siobhan Coady, MHA, St.
John's West.
MR. BROWNE:
Mark Browne, MHA, Placentia
West - Bellevue.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Andrew Parsons, Burgeo - La
Poile.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Paul Davis, Topsail -
Paradise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Sandra Barnes, Clerk.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you all very much.
I'll
refer to each of the Members and supporting staff to our binders of background
materials. And I want to turn us all now to Tab 2.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Chair –
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes?
MR. P. DAVIS:
– before (inaudible) there's
an item I'd like to raise that I don't see on the agenda, just (inaudible).
I know
that we've had some communications between Mr. Hutchings and I and yourself,
which you've shared earlier today with Members of the Management Commission,
regarding the ongoing matters of investigations by the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards. We were interested in seeking an opportunity to meet with
the Commissioner to obtain an update and discuss the process that he's been
following with ongoing matters and to gain some clarity on them. And I know from
previous discussions with you, there may be a plan to be able to deal with that
in the near future.
MR. SPEAKER:
That's correct, and I can
inform the Management Commission that the Clerk and I did speak with the
Commissioner this afternoon. He is agreeable to come before us at our next
Management Commission meeting and answer the questions that he's going to be
able to answer.
As I
noted in the correspondence to both yourselves and MHA Hutchings, there are
matters which remain confidential and within his purview that are not to be
disclosed; but, where he can help and assist, he's willing to do that. So I had
that conversation with him today. I thanked the Commissioner for his
co-operation, and at our next meeting I'm hoping it'll work with his schedule
and we'll have him here on the agenda.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, I appreciate
that.
And
(inaudible), I believe, for his attendance at our last two meetings on May 16
and May 30, I believe were the two dates, and I look forward to an opportunity
to speak to him again about it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
All
right, thank you for that.
I'll
turn us back to Tab 2 in our agenda. So the first action I need now is an
approval of our minutes from the meeting of May 30, 2018. I assume everyone's
had a chance to review them, I know I have. I did not see any errors or
omissions. If I'm not seeing any discussion, I seek a motion to approve the
minutes of the Commission meeting held on May 30, approved as read.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll make that motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. MHA Parsons.
MR. BROWNE:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seconded by MHA Browne.
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
The
minutes are approved.
On
motion, minutes approved as circulated.
MR. SPEAKER:
Moving over now to the next
item in that same tab, this relates to – we are obligated, we have a target of,
in advance, issuing out our schedule for the fall meetings and we have some
proposed dates in there. I did not bring my BlackBerry with my dates in it, but
let's see what we can do.
We have
proposed three meetings: October 31, Halloween, November 21 and December 19. I
look for discussion as to how these dates may work, and I know one certain
gentleman in the room doesn't like this date at all, Halloween. So I look for
alternative suggestions.
MHA
Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, what I would
suggest is perhaps – I'm thinking December 19, looking at the current House
schedule, is the House is likely not sitting. I don't think that's a good date.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
And, personally, I'm not a
fan of October 31, having young kids.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So that's just me, not that
the committee needs to work around me, but I don't think the 19th is good for
anybody. That's just my opinion.
I think
there's no reason we can't schedule a meeting in October that we all mutually
agree upon, but I think we would be better off if we worked on a November and
December date in accordance with the House schedule when we're all sitting
anyway and we can pretty much guarantee our attendance.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sure. I look for proposals
from the Commission.
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible) so the House
starts November 5.
MR. SPEAKER:
Fifth.
MR. A. PARSONS:
So the 21st, obviously
(inaudible) you know, that's probably fine.
Is the
House scheduled to sit in December?
CLERK:
Only until the first
Thursday, the sixth.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Maybe we'll go with the
fifth?
CLERK:
Okay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The fifth of December.
And
then we just need a date in October that could work for us.
MR. P. DAVIS:
A second date in November.
MR. SPEAKER:
Could we do a – I mean –
MR. P. DAVIS:
November 7.
MR. SPEAKER:
We had a Wednesday. Does it
have to be a Wednesday? Can it be a –
CLERK:
That's my birthday.
MR. A. PARSONS:
November 7?
MR. SPEAKER:
Sure.
MR. A. PARSONS:
November 7 (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
CLERK:
November 7?
MR. SPEAKER:
What's wrong with that?
CLERK:
My birthday.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oh.
MR. A. PARSONS:
For everybody's
co-operation, I pledge to share my trick-or-treats with the Members of the
Commission.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, so noted.
Okay.
So we have three proposed dates of November 7, November 21 and December 5. Any
other discussion on the matter?
Hearing
none, seeing none, we would go forward with those dates. I don't know if I need
a decision.
MR. P. DAVIS:
What time would they be?
Well, I know the House is sitting anyway, so I'm set. Okay.
MS. RUSSELL:
We usually do right after
the House sits.
MR. DAVIS:
Yes. My apology, yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
So I think we're just a
mutual agreement. I don't need a first or seconder on that, I don't think.
CLERK:
No, no, that's just a –
MR. SPEAKER:
Well, it is a recommended
motion. I'm sorry, I guess I do.
So
moved by MHA Hutchings, seconded by MHA Davis.
Thank
you very much.
Okay.
Tab 3, this is a report on – and there's no decision required. It's just to
inform the Commission that where I do have some discretion I use it, just in the
spirit of efficiency. There's a matter of some $78 relating to one of the
Members. The text is there; the explanation is provided in your binder. It was
really just a very small matter. So I'm just providing it for your information.
Also,
included in this tab is the eleventh report of the Audit Committee. Two of our
Members are also members of this, MHA Browne and MHA Hutchings. There's no
decision required but we did want to provide a copy of the report for your
perusal.
On to
Tab 4, this relates to Budget Transfers Report, and we are obligated to report
them. We have two sets of documents here. The first is a compilation of all
budget transfers that occurred in the last fiscal year, from 2017 to 2018. So
they're there for your records.
I have
a new item that I do need to seek – I do require a decision on this next item
because this is a proposed item. This is relating to a transfer of $25,000 from
the Members' Resources Allowances and Assistance that would be moved to the
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer for professional services. This relates to
the ongoing work that he's doing associated with the Members' Code of Conduct
reviews.
I need
a mover of this. MHA Browne. Seconder?
Anybody
have any discussion?
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'll second it, but just a
quick question. Just so I understand, these are professional services obtained
by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards in relation to the investigations
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
That's correct.
CLERK:
That's for the (inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
Okay.
Yeah,
I'll second it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, he's retained legal
support.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
So a
seconder, MHA Davis.
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
Thank
you very much.
On to
Tab 5; this is also for your information. It's very comprehensive. This is all
of the financial reports for each of the Members, and it's everything they have
done for last year, the last fiscal year, from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018,
and then, of course, an update from April 1 until June 30. So that first
quarter. That's all provided for your reading pleasure and you can track actual
costs against projected budgets.
Okay.
No discussion.
I'll
move us along now to Tab 6. Tab 6 is relating to an amendment to the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act and it relates to mandatory training for
MHAs.
We have
within the act now, the fact that it's an interesting nuance on the text; but,
to be clear, we would want to go forward with a motion. I'll just, by way of a
background – the fact of the matter is, is that while the act makes it mandatory
for the Speaker to ensure that there is appropriate training and orientation, it
does not make the attendance by the MHAs mandatory.
We have
discussed at this table, previously, the importance of everyone participating
and being aware, and we've talked about different strategies. Certainly, this
would be a tool that we could use to ensure absolute compliance amongst the
Members in this House.
I look
first of all for any further discussion on this. Seeing none –
MR. P. DAVIS:
I think it's a good thing to
do. To clarify it, to enforce the importance of such training and to have it
mandatory for all Members of the House of Assembly to attend, I think is
absolutely the right move to make.
I would
imagine that – or you would anticipate that when the legislation or the draft
comes forward that it would also deal with the fact, what if a Member refuses to
attend or how that would happen. But I think it's a good thing, in a general
sense from what is right here, that it make it mandatory for Members to attend.
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the Clerk have a
comment on that aspect of it?
CLERK:
No, this is the amendment
that will go forward. In terms of the – if you wanted to add a penalty for them
not attending, that would be a further enhancement of what's here.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I wasn't even thinking
penalty. I was just thinking – my thought was to ensure and to be able to make
sure they do attend and to – well, I suppose if they don't attend then it would
come back here anyway for a matter for the Commission to discuss at that point
in time.
CLERK:
Yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
They could be in violation
of the (inaudible).
MR. P. DAVIS:
Right. Yeah.
MR. SPEAKER:
All right, I'm going to read
this motion: Pursuant to subsections 15(5) and 20(7) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, the Commission approves the following
proposed amendment, subject to final wording by the Office of the Legislative
Counsel:
Section
22 of the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act is amended by adding
immediately after subsection (2) the following: (2.1) A Member shall attend or
otherwise avail of the orientation and training programs referred to in
subsections (1) and (2).
I need
a mover.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, MHA Hutchings.
Seconder?
MHA
Coady.
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
Thank
you very much, that is approved.
Just so
everyone is clear, now that we have approved it, the Government House Leader
will be asked to bring forward the proposed amendments to the act to Cabinet for
approval and then subject to final drafting by the Office of the Legislative
Counsel and presentation to this House of Assembly as a bill.
Yes,
MHA Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Just a comment in regard to
some of the work that has been done by the Privileges and Elections Committee.
Some of the work that has been done could intertwine with what's here. At some
point in the future we may be back again in regard to if we did entertain
further changes with this. So it's something to keep in mind, but this is fine
as to where we are right now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
All
right. Tab 7; this is the audited financial information for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2018 for the House of Assembly and Statutory Offices, excluding
the Office of the Auditor General, who is reviewed by a third party.
We do
have a decision. You see there's a letter from the Audit Committee. You have a
copy of the document. I do need an approval. This is the motion I would propose:
The Commission approves the audited financial information for April 1, 2017 to
March 31, 2018 for the House of Assembly and its Statutory Offices, as
recommended by the Audit Committee.
So I
need a mover of that.
MR. BROWNE:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you, MHA Browne.
And a
seconder.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
I'm a member of the Audit
Committee, I don't know if that matters or not.
MR. SPEAKER:
So is MHA Browne. I don't
think that's –
CLERK:
I don't think it makes –
MR. SPEAKER:
It's not precluding you, I
don't believe.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, if it's not, fine.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
MHA
Hutchings seconds.
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
That's
fine, thank you very much.
Now we
have a little –
MS. RUSSELL:
You have to sign under here. So you'll sign right here (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, and we'll ask you –
and invite one other Member to – I would invite one other Member of the
Commission. Perhaps somebody else who didn't – MHA Davis, if you wouldn't mind.
MR. P. DAVIS:
To move an (inaudible)? Does
it matter, or –?
CLERK:
It doesn't matter.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It doesn't matter.
MR. SPEAKER:
And then one other Member of
the Commission.
The
audited financial information for that year ending – section 32(3) of the
Auditor General Act states: The
auditor appointed from the office under the act shall submit their report to the
Management Commission – that's done. So there's no further decision.
Thank
you.
Tab 8;
we need to appoint an auditor for the House of Assembly and statutory offices.
The Audit Committee, you just recently met on August 29 and recommended the
Auditor General be appointed the auditor for the House of Assembly and related
offices for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.
There
is a letter there in your file from the Chair. I do require a decision. The
motion would be: Pursuant to subsection 43(2) of the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, the Commission appoints the Auditor
General as auditor of the House of Assembly and statutory offices for the year
ending March 31, 2018.
I need
a mover for that, please.
MR. BROWNE:
So moved.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Browne.
And a
seconder?
MS. COADY:
Seconded.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Coady.
Thank
you.
All in
favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
On to
Tab 9; this is an appeal from the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island,
and you can see from the background, just the context of it was that: “The
Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island is appealing the denial of payment
of expenses totalling $50.00 to attend an event hosted by the Mount
Pearl/Paradise Chamber of Commerce.
“Expenses related to attending such events (the Member was invited to speak as
it took place in his district) are permitted in accordance with paragraph
46(3)(a) of the Members' Resources and
Allowances Rules, provided that either ‘the Member or his or her
constituency assistant is in attendance at those events.'
Following a review of the details of the expense, it was determined” however,
that this was “not eligible for reimbursement as neither the Member or” the CA
“attended the event. The Member instead asked the” CA of another MHA to attend.
I know
this seems perhaps trivial to everyone here, but nevertheless, our staff are
bound by the rules. As you know, we have a very strict oversight. So that's why
it was not deemed in compliance with our rules.
The
Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island is appealing this decision and the
Management Commission does have the ability to rule on this one way or the
other.
MHA
Coady.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
just wondering, in normal circumstances you can having an acting constituency
assistant. I understand from the MHA for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, I
understand the CA that he had was unfortunately ill and he had a representative
fill in for him. How do we – there is a nuance here in the fact that he had
somebody else filling in, if I can use that term, for his constituency
assistant, for that day who did appear on his behalf.
In a
normal process, if you were having somebody fill in for your constituency
assistant, that would be allowable? Is that what I understand, if my
constituency assistant was off on sick leave for a period of time and I had –
CLERK:
A replacement.
MS. COADY:
– a replacement?
CLERK:
That's fine.
In this
case the constituency assistant, I think, was ill, and you can only have a
replacement if the person is off for more than a day.
MS. COADY:
Correct.
CLERK:
So another Member's CA
filled in at the event.
MS. COADY:
Yeah.
CLERK:
We just don't have the
authority to –
MS. COADY:
Right.
I guess
what I'm pointing out is, for our consideration, there was a replacement, even
though it was only for a day, and in the regular rules and the regular context,
if the replacement was there for more than a day that person would have been
able to fill in.
CLERK:
You are correct, yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Hutchings.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
My understanding is a
replacement CA is something that's applied for and recognized by the House.
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
You can get a replacement to
come in.
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
(Inaudible) I understand the
event. My concern would be the precedent set for somebody replacing someone and
the event be reimbursed. I'm not sure how that would hold for future events.
MR. SPEAKER:
MHA Parsons.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah, my concern is the
slippery slope here, because like the rule itself is very clear: MHA and their
CA.
While I
get that the other person was a CA, what if that option – like that option might
be available in this area where you have a bunch of MHAs around and a bunch of
CAs around, so what about out my way if I had the same situation? Because I get
the logic where we are saying: look, the ticket was prepaid, we don't want to
waste it.
I have
an event in Port aux Basque, I can't go. My CA, Joanne, can't go. I don't have
access to another CA to represent me. So why I can't I get so-and-so to
represent me? Like, it's a slippery slope and a precedent set that I'm a little
worried about because it can be applied differently, and this – I think the rule
is very clear.
MR. SPEAKER:
Mm-hmm.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now, just say there was an
application that day: look, my CA is sick, I need a fill in. We can get that
expedited pretty quickly. We have had to do that. That wouldn't be an issue, and
it's not the money here because I hate – I get where the MHA was going with
this, and I can see probably asking for the same thing if I was in that
situation, but I'm just worried about the application down the road.
MR. SPEAKER:
Anyone wishing – MHA Davis.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Of
course, the other nuance with this is that the ticket had been purchased. It was
an event that – for the Member or his constituency assistant – would be an
allowable expense under current rules. It was a Chamber of Commerce event; the
ticket was purchased.
According to what he had submitted, the ticket for the meal had been ordered and
paid for in advance. Last minute, he couldn't attend. His constituency assistant
wasn't well. Actually, it wasn't just anybody who replaced him. It was actually
a constituency assistant who is still an employee of the House of Assembly for
another district. Actually, it was an adjoining district.
The
constituency assistant who attended was a constituency assistant for the
adjoining district, which is also relative to the Mount Pearl/Paradise Chamber
of Commerce. So it wasn't like it was a constituency assistant that had no
connection to their jurisdiction of that particular organization.
I
appreciate my colleague's comments about a slipper slope and we have to be very,
very careful with those. I believe also that it would be incumbent on us to take
each particular circumstance on its own merits, on its own circumstances,
because it's very difficult to find a policy that will fit every potential
eventuality that could occur.
We
spend a fair bit of time here and we quite often, I would say, practically every
meeting have agenda items where we have to make discretionary calls on
circumstances that arise that are unforeseen. I think this is one of them. It
doesn't happen very often. It happened in this case, and I think in this case
the Member had purchased a ticket with the intention of attending, and it should
be covered.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay. Any further
discussion?
MHA
Browne.
MR. BROWNE:
Given that the constituency
assistant that attended was from an adjoining district, would it be possible for
it to be covered under that MHA's rather than Mr. Brazil's? Presumably, if it
was relating to the district of the adjoining MHA? If that MHA –
CLERK:
Submit the –
MR. SPEAKER:
That may be a way through
the middle of this, yeah.
MR. BROWNE:
We may avoid the precedence
that MHA Parsons outlines while still –
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's a common sense
solution, because it's still not going outside the rules. An adjoining MHA would
have fallen under that Chamber of Commerce's jurisdiction. They could have gone
and it would have been an allowable expense. So maybe just do it that way rather
than this way, where we end up with a situation where we might have a debate
down the road again. So that's a great suggestion if it fits.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do we know which district
the other CA was from?
CLERK:
I think it's the Paradise
that gave it away.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, and, Mr. Speaker, I'm
fine with that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
CLERK:
You're going to submit the
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
How about – so then I would
suggest that the –
MR. P. DAVIS:
It's going to be past 60
days. So we won't have to bring that back, right?
MR. SPEAKER:
Oh, we don't need a –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Can we provide a waiver now
that –
CLERK:
On the 60 days?
MR. A. PARSONS:
On the 60 days –
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oh, yeah.
MR. A. PARSONS:
– given that –
MS. RUSSELL:
Yes, we can waive the 60 –
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm able to do that.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We'd waive it when it came
back anyway. So to avoid the –
MR. SPEAKER:
I can do that.
CLERK:
He can waive the 60 days.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, and I'm being told I
don't need a further decision other than we've decided to do that.
CLERK:
Yes.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That's pretty –
MR. SPEAKER:
This is so good, yeah.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That was good.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, thank you very much.
That's excellent.
All
right, and then finally Tab 10. That's the caucus operating funding grants
report. We are required to submit a summary report of all expenditures for the
fiscal year within 90 days of the end of that year. So here we are. That's for
your information only, no decision.
I have
no final remarks, other than I would say that November 7 is our next scheduled
meeting. As I promised at the start of this, we'll have a discussion with the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards and we'll look to have him provide
whatever update he can at that time on the agenda as well as other items.
So I
thank you all for your time. I look for – thank you, MHA Parsons, moved to
adjourn; seconded by MHA Browne.
Thank
you all very much.
On
motion, meeting adjourned.