Manitoba Committee Hansard — Rules of the House Committee, Sitting 2 (32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-rh2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

I ISSN 0542-5492 First Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on RULES of the HOUSE 31 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. D. James Walding Constituency of St. Vital VOL. XXX No. 2-10:00 a.m., TUESDAY, 21 September, 1982. Printed by the Office of the a.-,s Printer, ProVInce of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT,Andy ASHTON, Sieve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) SLAKE, Davld R: (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Ruuell DOLIN, Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phll FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrle HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elljah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterl ing MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurlk (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myma A. PLOHMAN, John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vie SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Aiel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP INO NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

I LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 Time - 10:00 a.m. CHAIRMAN - Hon. D. James Waldlng MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a quorum, the Committee will come to order. I believe the agenda has been distributed to members and also some background material. If anyone doesn't have that material and wants some we have additional copies. Mr. Anstett. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, before we begin I have a letter of resignation for this meeting from Mr. Brian Corrin who was on the Committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it the will of the Committee to accept the resignation?

Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Mr. Anstett. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that Mr. Don Scott be elected to substitute for Mr. Corrin for this meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: lt is Moved and Seconded that Mr. Scott be a member of the Committee. Is that agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Mr. Ransom. MR. B. RANSOM: A point of clarification. Mr. Chair man, that the Motion is just for this meeting and that there is going to be then perhaps a different person on other meetings of the Rules Committee? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, it was unclear whether or not Mr.

Corrin would be able to attend future meetings; it was our intention that it would be Mr. Scott if Mr. Corrin was unavailable for future meet ings, but Mr. Corrin had difficulty attending today. MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that membership on the Committee cannot be made conditional for a particu lar time in advance. Mr. Scott is elected to the Commit tee the same as any other member and it is up to this group to make further changes if they wish to in the future. Mr. Ransom. MR. B. RANSOM: Well, I would just like to know, has Mr. Corrin resigned from the Committee? MR. H. GRAHAM: He would have to to be replaced.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that was the text of the first letter that I have. On the note that I sent out to members there was Item No. 9- Other Matters. 1t has been indicated to me that Mr. Penner wishes to have a matter added to the agenda. Would you add the matter of Question Period, 10 Mr. Penner, under Item 9? Are there any further items that members wish to have added to the agenda? Mr. Graham. MA. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, getting back to the matter raised by the Member for Turtle Mountain, I believe this is not a letter of resignation from Mr. Corrin.

The letter says: Dear Sir: This will confirm and advise that I will not be able to attend the meeting set down for today at 10 o'clock for the Committee on the Rules of the House and would ask that you accept Don Scott, MLA as my substitute and/or replacement for this meeting. I don't believe that is a proper letter of resignation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Penner. HON. A. PENNER: I would readily agree with Mr.

Graham that it is somewhat lacking in precision and elegance but I think the last clause makes it clear that he, when he says "my replacement," that it can be construed, and I think it is only fair to construe it as a letter of resignation from the Committee and it should be accepted as such. I think you are right in pointing out that is all it can be. Mr. Ransom pointed out that there is no provision for just a temporizing kind of "I can't be here today, but I'll be here next time. " lt is accepted as a resignation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: The final clause makes reference to this meeting, Mr.

Chairman. You have already ruled that Mr. Corrin has resigned from the Committee and he has been replaced by Mr. Scott, so we have moved beyond that reference to this single meeting. Is that not correct? HON. A. PENNER: I would agree. MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't read the letter when it was put forward by Mr. Anstett. l took his word that it was a letter of resignation by Mr. Corrin. Mr. Fox. MR. P. FOX: I think we should get our facts correct. No member can appoint himself or change his mem bership on the Committee temporarily, he either is on or he isn't on.

That is the total matter to the issue and so therefore if he can't be here, and he has indicated that he is not going to be here, he is resigning for today. Whether he wants to resign for other days or not and get back on, he will have to talk to the members who are going to nominate him because he can't nominate himself. MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that has been the way that the Committee has accepted this particular letter, that it is a letter of resignation, that it meets the approval of the Committee, that Mr. Scott has been elected to the Committee, and that is the way it stands.

If there is nothing further on that matter is there anything further to be added to the propo�ed agenda? If not, is the agenda agreed to? Agreed

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 and so ordered. N0.1- PROCEDURE ON PRIVATE BILLS MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we then begin with Item No. 1? If you recall. there was some discussion under Private Bills at our last meeting and I believe what we had intended then was that the wording of the Rules reflect the actual practice. I am told that when this matter was under examination that the procedure under Private Bills had developed over decades and it may be that this is a reasonable time to examine the whole thing and see whether it is rea lly effective and up-to-date.

On Page 1 there is some material on Private Bills and there is a suggestion at the bottom of the page. What is your will and pleasure? Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I believe it was just a matter of thr ee or four years ago that we did make some changes in the pr ocedure on Private Bills. In that particular case I think we dealt purely with the monetary aspect of it, but if that has caused any undue hardship then I think we should have some informa tion as to whether or not it has caused any trouble. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I don't have any difficulty with the Motion that is offered to the Com mittee for consideration. lt doesn't lock us into any thing. I don't see any reason for not having the Stand ing Committee and the Officers of the Assembly review the mechanics regarding Private Bills and have a look at what amendments might be desirable to impr ove those procedures. If we don't like them we won't accept them when we are finished looking at them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ransom. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman.

I would suggest that in reviewing it then that staff try and determine for us the reasons why some of the practices are in place before we throw out existing pr actices; that we know what the background to those pr actices was, because things like that have a habit of coming back once you eliminate them and some time down the road you find out that ther e was a reason for it. So, in their review, perhaps they would try and dig back and determine that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments? Mr. Santos. MR. C. SANTOS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why the exception relating to the Sergeant-at-Arms? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackintosh. MR. G. MACKINTOSH: For the Committee, the Sergeant-at-Arms is not a Procedural Officer of the Ass embly. His purpose is to maintain the furnitur e and fittings of the Assembly and pr ovide security in the Chamber itself and precluding any involvement in 11 pr ocedural matters. That Motion would include the Law Officer, the Deputy Law Officer. the Clerk and the Clerk Assistants. MR. C. SANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Penner. HON. R. PENNER: I would concur with the sugges tion of referring the matter to the Officers of the Assembly as in the proposal. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Any further comment? If not, does the Com mittee concur with the recommendation of the Motion No. 1? Agreed? Ag reed and so ordered. NO. 2 - PRINTING OF VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS; BILLS MR. CHAIRMAN: No. 2. Do you have anything to add, Mr. Mackintosh? MR. G. MACKINTOSH: Yes. if I may. The Votes and Proceedings have histori cally been reproduced by way of typesetting and as you are all aware typeset ling, although a very attractive print, is also fairly costly, and while we all are trying to become more cost efficient, I simply propose this to the Committee for their consideration.

We haven't gone into any in depth cost analysis of comparison. What this sugges tion would simply mean was that we could study the implementation of word processing and I know that the Legislative Counsel Office is equipped this very day to produce camer a-ready copy for Queen's Prin ter duplication. The Clerk's Office does not yet have that capability. I spoke with the Queen's Printer last week regarding their duplication facilities and whether they would be able to meet our time

schedule and they think they would. I think the bottom line really is that we're look ing at major cost savings here. Now I have for the Committee some examples. lt's a comparison of the present Votes and Proceedings with the Word Pro cessing Votes and Proceedings. Another benefit of this pr ocess is that the Votes and Proceedings, in particular, can be kept within the Clerk's Office, can be produced totally within the Clerk's Office and would cut down on unnecessary duplication of effort in producing this publication. I think Rae perhaps can talk on the bills. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. P.

FOX: Yes, one of the things I'd like to know is, what are the costs now for Votes and Proceedings? You indicate you had no cost benefit studies, but yet you're saying there's at least a 40 percent savings. How do you arrive at that if you had no cost benefit studies? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackintosh. MR. G. MACKINTOSH: We've had cost benefit stu dies in the general sense and it currently cost $21 ,000 to produce Votes and Proceedings for a typicai9Q-day Session. We are looking at a reduction of about $8,000

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 • we figure, for the elimination of typesetting, but ther e are other costs involved. For instance, the duplication costs and the labour costs within the Clerk's Office, in this case, that we cannot pinpoint at this time, and I don't want to get into a detailed study without an approval in genera l, in principle, from the Committee that we could look at this kind of print. In other words, is this kind of print acceptable for a publication of the Assembly? MR. P. FOX: Another thing, Mr. Chairman, what would a word processor cost approximately, ball-park figure? MR. G.

MACKINTOSH: For the Clerk's Office itself we have requested $22,000 for the word processor. As I already stated, the Law Officer already has a word processor. We are attempting to justify the word pro cessor for the Clerk's Office, not solely on the basis of reduced costs of producing Votes and Proceedings, but for other benefits within the Clerk's Office and for production of the Order Paper, which I might add is already done on a word processor. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Santos. MR. C. SANTOS: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to register that I favour these changes, not only because it will be more efficient, but it will give flexibility in the prepara tion of the Votes and Proce edings. Even most of the modern prin ting establishments nowadays have shifted from the old traditional typesetting method to this new computerized thing for the sake of not only efficiency but cost saving as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, speaking to the Motion made by the Honourable Member for Burrows, I think we have to remember that Or ders of the Day are an in-House document that are prin ted and once the day is over they'r e no longer of any benefit to anyone. We have gone to word processing for that, but Votes and Proceedings are the official Minutes of the pro- ceedings of the House and they are preserved for posterity.

I know in the period when I was Speaker of the House there were considerations being made then. but we were unable to provide, through the word processing system, a quality of product that was acceptable to maintain for posterity. I would suggest that you have one example, I will cir culate another one of the Order Paper pri nted by the word processor and the Votes and Proceed ings by the typesetter. I am not a prin ter, but I have had con siderable experien ce with people that do quality work and take pride in their work and I submit there is no comparison between the quality of the work between the two.

When you're considering that you're printing a record for posterity that will survive long beyond our time we had better think carefully about the quality that we put out because it may reflect on the quality of the work that we do as well. Maybe we are doing inferior work here and the word processor would, quite adequately, reflect the quality of the work. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett. 12 MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I share to some extent Mr. Graham's concern, particularly in view of the fact that the Votes and Proceedings does become the Journals of the House.

Several years ago a change was made which eliminated the need for separate paste-up individual typesetting of pages to create the Journals. They are just pasted up by eliminating the Votes and Proceedings heading on ou·r current Votes and Proceedings.

What we would in effect have is our bound Journals consisting of a series of these word processor pr o duced Votes and Proceed ings and I think we should decide first whether or not we want our Journals, in the final sense of the word, done that way, because if we don't, then we are going to end up having to re typeset to produce the Journals and then ther e is no cost saving because the cost of retypesetting the whole thing would be just as high or higher than the cost oftypesetting them originally each day. So, if this is acceptable for our Journals as a perman ent record, about which Mr.

Graham indicates some reserv ations -and I would share those reserv ations-but if we found that it was acceptable for that purpose then, fine. As a daily minute it rnay or may not be acceptable, but for the Journals I have some reservations as to whether or not we want that as a perman ent record. Another thing I would point out for Mr. Santos' benefit, this is not typeset now; it is computer typeset by the prin ters; it is not cast-in-lead old style, it is already done computer style.

As you mention most pri nters are into computers already and it is done that way now so we are not in any way old fashioned with the current style of typesetting. In fact, the prin ters that do it do it in a very modern way. The concern I have, if we go to this, is that in some ways it may be subject to the same problems we've had with Hansard, which I understand are on the agenda later, in terms of the fact that the Legislative Assembly does not have first priorit y use and control of the equipment in the space that is used for its Hansard operation.

And, if that were to happen, in terms of having control and first priority for the Assembly, of this new equipment tied into the main system down in Hansard, then we might have less flexibility, less maneuvering room in terms of getting the work done than we would have right now contract ing with an outside prin ter. So I have some reserva tions; those are more questions than anything else. Mr. Mackintosh mentions the question of cost benefit and the costs of labour in the Clerk's Office.

I don't think that the labour costs there are that crucial since I don't suspect that even if we get the system we are going to be eliminating one of the two people presently providing secreta rial support in the Clerk's Office. So if we are not going to be eliminating them, labour costs may not be a crucial cost factor. I have some rese rvations. I think the idea is attractive; I am not completely convinced of the quality and I am not completely convinced that it gives us the flexibility that we need. Votes and Proceedings, as I reca ll, has always been very prompt when we've been dealing witti outside persons.

Speed and those kinds of factors don't appear to enter into it; they were more important though with the Order Paper.

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Penner. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Anstett raises some important concerns or questions and I think that before we make a final decision we should get answers to those ques tions, parti cularly with respect to the amount of cost saving and whether or not there is the added effi ciency in the production of Votes and Proceedings that is being suggested. I think that these become the important things. If there is, as is suggested, some significant saving, then I'm not at all concerned that the quality that is demonstrated here is such that we could not tolerate it.

In fact I think, as I understand it. the Orders of the Day which was circulated, is also word processi ng, is it? Well, this particular example is not a particu larly good example. I think you can do much better on word processing. There are different types of typeface that you can get on word processing and I'd like to see some other samples because if you look at the Orders of the Day it's a much more presentable copy.

If the quality of word processing can be made somewhat better then I think it is at least acceptable quality. lt has to reach that threshold level of course. but if it's acceptable quality and if there are savings then we all realize that we are long gone from the Cad iliac world and this is not just a temporary aberration in the econ omy.

I think it is something that we're going to see. with some fluctuations. for the next 25-50 years and where significant savings can be made, in my view, they have to be made, so I would suggest that we find out with a little more precision as to the amount of money that it is suggested we can save, whether or not. in going to word processing, we will in any way sacrifice the efficiency of the production of Votes and Proceedings or whether, indeed, we will enhance it as has been suggested. But subject to that, I think I'm saying now, in concluding, the same thing that Andy has said.

I would vote for going to word processing because the quality can be brought up to an accepta ble level. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairm an, I was just going to place my concern too on the question of savings and the operative word really is "significant." If there are significant savings that can be made it has to be looked at but if there aren't significant savings to be made then I don't think there's any comparison between the existing method and the word processing method in terms of readability.

From an aesthetic point of view, if one can afford aesthetics, there is simply no comparison although I would agree with Mr. Penner that I've seen better word processing productions than this one, I'm not sug gesting that is the example, and the unalterable example, that we are going to get from the word pro cessor. I believe it can be improved too but if there is no significant saving to be made then. for reasons already cited by Mr. Grah am. the permanency of the record and the public exposure of that record , I would be very much in favour of maintaining the present rAethod of typesetting and production. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. 13 MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairm an, I think probably I was more involved in the-changeover than any other person sitting around this table and when we origi nally went to the word processor we had extensive meetings. The pros and cons, the merits and what the machines could do were spelt out to us on numerous occasions and also some of the pitfalls that are also available. I would suggest you take a look at the print ing of the word "Committee" with a word processor, on both, by word processor and typesetting.

With the Wang System that is presently in effect it is impossible to properly space "m's" and "w's" so that you get a quality job such as you do get with typesetting, one of the things you have to live with when you convert. We recognized that when we went to the system for our use in Hansard and many other Government docu ments because of the elimination of two or three phases in the printing and the advantage of time that you could get through a word processing system.

However, Votes and Proceedings you do have a little extra time in the printing of it and I hope that we will be able to get the actual costs. it's not too difficult to break that out and I think when you consider all the aspects of it you'll find that the cost saving is not that much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The main concern I have I think is with the storage capability of it. We're talking about records for posterity sake as was mentioned earlier by Mr. Graham.

I think if the word processor produced has the same storage abil ity -what I'm thinking here of is some of the earlier photocopies. You go back into library records or even your own perso nal records back a number of years, and you find paper being brittle and the copy falling off the sheet and that sort of thing. First off, are these photo copied or are they produced as orig inals every run? MR. G. MACKINTOSH: In the present Votes and Proceedings? MR. D. SCOTT: Yes. and also the other. MR. G. MACKINTOSH: it's photogr aphed. MR. H. GRAHAM: lt also has the same storage capac ity as a word processor. MR. D.

SCOTT: So there's no difference in storage capacity in one versus the other, okay then. I think partia lly on a savings for the printing costs at least we have some fix on our cost if we're producing it our selves through a Word Processing Centre, use of the Centre. If possible, like does the Clerk's office really need to acquire another word processor at a projected cost of $22,000 which is rea lly quite an expensive word processor. Do we need to incur that additional cost or can it be handled by the system we already have downstairs and in place there.

I think then we would come into that much more of a cost savings if that was possible. Regarding the quality of the two. You talk about two m's being closer together. if you take a look at the

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 current typeset one we have, a number of the letters are not properly formed if one wants to get picky about "m's" or "w's" being too close together. If you look at the word Penner the vertical lines ofthe "n" are not even on the paper. HON. R. PENNER: I noticed that I thought it was an abomination. MR. D. SCOTT: The "12 :30," the "2" is not properly formed and down below, I mean, this has more gaps in the pri nting itself of what is supposed to be set than does the word process ing copy.

I'm not terr ibly con cerned of the quality because I think from my own eyes I feel that by using a larger type than the small type that is being used on the current copy you can just change your daisy wheels or whatever else you're using on the system for a different type. I think if there are savings to be made we shouldn't even think twice about going to the word process ing system. I think we should think twice about buying additional word pro cessor if we can use the present system. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackintosh. MR. G.

MACKINTOSH: Just interpret ing the wishes of the Committee I propose that I go back and do a detailed cost study of this proposal and bring it back to the Rules Committee at some time in the near future. For the next Session of the Legislature we will continue to use the present process of type setting. Again, in the meanwhile we will examine what kinds of typeface are available as alternatives to what we pro posed here today and look in detail at the cost savings that would be realized. Is that the wish of the Committee? HON. R. PENNER: See if you can get Italian Bodoni instead of Pr airie Gothic. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Would that suit the will of the Committee to have Mr. Mackintosh continue as he has outlined? That's agreed. Mr. Tallin on the same No. 2. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, we have a Motion, I believe, Mr. Santos maybe would care to withdraw. MR. CHAIRMAN: There was no Motion on the floor. Mr. Tallin. MR. R. TALLIN: With respect to the Bills, there is a slightly different prob lem. One is that we get the Bills typeset, in the first instance, always and they are typeset from a disc which is prepared by the word process ing machine.

After the Session the Bills are converted into Chapters for publication and the bind ing of the records of the House; insofar as Bills and Chapters are concerned, is in

Chapter form with the exception of one bound copy of the Bill and that's the original Bill. ·As far as I'm aware the original copies of Bills are looked at very rarely. Perhaps once or twice a year someone may want to look at an original Bill. Usually it's the Legislative Counsel Branch to find out whether or not we have made an editorial mistake in something 14 that's being published. So that there's a double type setting operat ion. The printing costs for the Bills and the Chapters are the same, that is the machine work on the presses, but the typesetting costs are different.

The typsetting costs for Bills are $1 3.50 per page. When those are retypeset for converting into Chapters it's not a per page charge, it's an hourly charge for editorial changes. During the last two years that has run at approxima tely $7.00 to $7.50 in that period per page. There is one other aspect which should be looked upon and that is that in several other provinces of Canada what are called Third Reading Bills are pro duced. We have not been pro ducing Third Reading Bills for 20 years now because of the costs.

Third Reading Bills are bills which are prepared with the Committee amendments added to them so that the members of the House will know what they are debat ing on Third Reading or perhaps at Report Stage. it's one of the requests that we've had from time to time that we go back to printing Third Reading Bills and from time to time we have.

One of the difficulties is that the Committee stage of the House, as you well know. usually takes place in the last week-and-a-half or two weeks of the Session and we're busy enough wor rying about getting the amendments prepared for Committee without worrying about doing editorial work on getting Thir d Reading Bills done. So by the time the Third Reading Bills are available the useful ness to the House is passed; that is, we normally have not been able to produce them until after the House has risen, at which time the

Chapter is what people are interested in. What I have distributed before you are two copie s: One is the typewritten sheet as we use it in-house and that is the large sheet. If it was determi ned that you wanted to proceed by having the Bills done by this method it would be reduced to the size of the second one. We didn't go to the trouble of mocking-up the Bill the way it would be here, but essentially at the top of the page Bill 6 would be in large bold face print. The cover of the Bill would be almost the same as it is now, because the only change would be in the title and the number.

Of course, it is possible we could produce bills without a cover page at all, just start page 1, this, and the name of the person introducing it would be at the top of the page which would, in most cases, reduce the cost by two pages, because in typesetting you pay for the blank pages as well as the full pages and quite frequently the back page of the cover is not print ed at all, it is just a blank sheet. lt is possible, as Mr. Penner pointed out, that we could get another type face by using a different font on the printer.

Although I think on the printer that we have there is only a choice of about four fonts and that is because we would have to have a bilingual font, you wouldn't want one font for English and another com pletely different looking font for the French version. I think there are only four different styles of type that are available in Fr ench, although I think there are about thirteen in the English versions. MR. D. SCOTT: Then people who couldn't read either language could differentiate. MR. R. TALLIN: That's right. Insofar as time is con-

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 cerned. time has not in the past been a very gr eat factor in produc ing the Bills. Time has been a factor in produc ing the Chapters. What we have done this year is, instead of using the old typeset Bills. the Printer uses our updating from our word proces sing and takes a brand new disk and processes it, but he gives us the same charge of $7.50 per page as though it was an update because that is in the contract. but it is cheaper for him actually to take and reset the whole thing from our new disks.

What we are intending to do is to cut out the front part of the typesetting operation altogether and go to typesetting that is done from the word processor and any cost saving in this will depend upon what kind of a contract the Printer can give on his next tender , because his present contr act termi nates as of December 31s t and he has to tender for his next period of pr inting. I would rat her suspect that cost will not be higher than it is now. but we haven't cost that out yet what the Queen's Printer's cost would be in producing the equivalent number of Bills by an in house duplication system of some kind.

What we wanted to do, just in the same way as the Clerk suggested, there is no use going into a long costing process in this if the Committee is sort of adamant about saying, no. they want the Bills in the formal typeset manner. - I should point out to you that over the past ten years there have been about a half-dozen Bills introduced in only a typewritten form in any case and that is because on the last day or the second last day of the Session sometimes an odd thing crops up that people want done and rather than send it over to the printing establishment to be done and wait for perhaps 24 hours, we just duplicate it on a Xerox machine right in the building here and produce a hundr ed copies of typewritten Bills and distrib ute those.

So. in the past there have been typewritten Bills used in the House in any case. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Legislative Counsel has said that it depended on the number of fonts -you had four fonts, I believe-and I know there is a possi bility - in fact it exists today -where you can get a font that will automatically print English and French, but we are prevented from doing that. I believe, through legal terminology. Is that cor rect, Rae? MR. R. TALLIN: I think there are pr ograms that will translate English into French and French into English.

They are very simple programs and they work quite well for catalogue-type of operations. but our infor mation is that they don't work too well when they are translating textual matters. wher e the context of words may give different meanings. MR. H. GRAHAM: You stated that it was about $13 for typesetting per page and about $7 or $7.50 for the second go-around. What is our cost for translation per page at the present time? MR. R. TALLIN: I am afraid I couldn't tell you. 15 MR. H. GRAHAM: Do we pay by the page or by the word? MR. R.

TALLIN: By the word, and it varies because we have some done in-house and I don't know that they have ever-the ones being done in-house at the pres ent time are being done by trainees being trained in translation. and presu mably their speed will impr ove, but then. of course, as they get better tr aining I pre sume their salaries will impr ove too, so there may not be much of a difference. However, the cost per word varies depending upon who you are contracting with and I have heard -this is certainly not fir m and fast figures as high as 29 cents a word and as low as 18 cents a word. MR. H.

GRAHAM: So our translation costs are some where between 18 and 29 cents a word at the present time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that it, Mr. Graham? MR. H. GRAHAM: Yes, that was all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Santos. MR. C. SANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to dir ect a question to the Legislative Counsel. I want to know whether the more extensive use of word process ing would give the capability to your office to produce a Thir d Reading version of the Bills. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tallin. MR. R.

TALLIN: lt would make it possible if the House was moving a little more slowly between the Commit tee Stage and the proro guing or adjournment of the House after Royal Assent, but even if they decided to continue to have the bills pr ocessed and pri nted in the same way they are now. if we were going into a Third Reading Bill I think we would, at least initially. use the Thir d Reading Bill concept only with duplication of a typewritten bill off our processor, because that would mean that we would have an additional $7 per page in an intermediate stage plus all the printing costs. MR. C. SANTOS: Mr.

Chairman, I think, if it is at all possible, it is more important in fact than the First Reading version, because the Thir d version of the Bill is pract ically the appr oved Bill itself. and it is a serious sin of omission for the last 20 years, the Legislature not doing this for posterity sake. MR. R. TALLIN: Thir d Reading Bills have nothing to do with posterity, people throw them away as soon as they get the Chapters. -(I nterjection)- What? MR. C. SANTOS: ... people who are doing legal research. MR. R. TALLIN: They can find that from the Chapter, because the information is all in the final ver sion Chapter.

We are not proposing that we do away with the formal typesetting of the

Chapter ver sion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett.

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 MR. A. ANSTETT: I just want to be clear on exactly what Mr. Tallin is asking us to consider.

As I under stand it, what we would be looking at is a reduced copy of full-sized typed copy to be the working copies of the bills that we use in the House, that are distrib uted to the public while a Bill is under consideration, that are considered in Committee, and that by doing this you could then produce, by just ru nning your tapes thr ough your word processor again, updated versions at Report Stage and Thir d Reading Stage, that could be reproduced the same way to produce copies such as this. MR. R. TALLIN: Yes. MR. A.

ANSTETT: And that the only loss is the loss of the formal typeface that we've had in the past. Could you still do such things as put the heading above sections in bold print, is that possible? MR. R. TALLIN: Yes, because the bold print is just done by rety ping it. You will notice that the names of the members on this one are in bold face and that is just done by rety ping it twice. MR; A. ANSTETT: That's all it's . MR. R. TALLIN: That's all it does, yes. MR. A. ANSTETT: Can your machine be programmed to retype those lines? MR. R. TALLIN: Yes, you just pr ess a key and ask it to retype it. MR. A.

ANSTETT: So we could get our headings in bold type. That's the one thing when I look at this page I find missing. MR. R. TALLIN: The difference between bold face and ordin ary face type in the processor, as you can see, is not quite as much as it is on the pri nted bill but it is enough to attract your eye to it. MR. A. ANSTETT: To break it out, yes, because that's the only concern I have about it. An ancillary question then. Since we haven't had Thir d Reading or Report Stage Bills in the past, and you expr ess concern about the amount of time required, how much time would be required?

Our Rules provide essentially 24 hours for Report Stage consideration, minimum, and usually it's more like 48 or 72. In that situation, on a Bill which had been heav ily amended in Committee or heavily amended at Report Stage - in which case after the Report Stage we can only, by leave, go into Thir d Reading -we nor mally have to wait 24 hours. If members had a con cern, let's say an average of 48 hours, even under the pressure-cooker situation that we're usually in in Speed-up, would that be possible to produce those in this format if you didn't have to back typeset? MR. R.

TALLIN: I would say that 90 percent of the time it would be, yes. MR. A. ANSTETT: lt would be. 16 MR. R. TALLIN: At the present time I think the bills delivered are about 1, 000 copies, 900 copies or some thing like that. We wouldn't produce that many of Thir d Reading Bills, we would probably only produce 150, essentially for the Members of the House. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to sug gest then that we not only go with this but that we go without the cover and eliminate those extra pages as well. MR. R.

TALLIN: If we didn't have the cover we would reduce the front page and make it start about halfway down because there has to be a certificate on the top often. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ransom. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Anstett just dealt with the question basically that I had about pro ducing the Thir d Reading Bills thr ough word process ing and I think when that becomes possible that it would be an advantage to the members to have that available. MR. R.

TALLIN: I should point out that we could do the Thir d Reading Bills without giving up the printing of the original bills, because that's a complete rehash of it anyway at the Thir d Reading Stage, which we hope to be able to do anyway. One of the difficulties is that ifweg o to Thir d Read ing Bills, at least initially, it would be very difficult to get them typeset in the same format as the present bills and, ther efore, it is not easy to compare, because your lines don't fit in as easily;

whereas if they are both done on the same typesetting maching, then you can compare and you say, well ther e is something differ ent in that line. MR. B.

RANSOM: Well, I have always felt that the review of the bills has been one of the weaker points in our legislative process and anything that would con trib ute to making a review of the bills easier and more thorough would be useful and, ther efore, I would favor going to the word process ing for the production of them. lt would allow, in most cases at least, to have a Thir d Reading edition of the bill available, or wha tever the term inology is you're using. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Item No. 3 MR. R.

TALLIN: By the way, what is agreed, that we study the cost implications of it or just that we go ahead and do it? -(I nterjection)- Yes, the original First Reading Bill that you get when it is first distrib uted and then after Committee Stage . . . MR. D. SCOTT: Thir d Reading or at the end? MR. A. ANSTETT: We only do Report Stage and Thir d Read ing if there have been substantiv e enough amendments that members want a Thir d Reading or Report Stage Bill.

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 MR. R. TALLIN: Presumably, we wouldn't do it if there were no amendments or if the amendments were merely typogr aphical. HON. R. PENNER: And then you'd do it in that limited run? MR. R. TALLIN: Yes. MR. A. ANSTETT: lt could probably be done on a request basis. At Comm ittee Stage members could ask. because of the nature of the amendments, that a Thir d Reading Bill be prepared. MR. R. TALLIN: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: If that is agreed, may we move to Item No. 3. NO. 3-SECONDING OF MOTIONS MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackintosh do you have any thing to add to what is typed out on the sheet. MR. G.

MACKINTOSH: This matter of discussion is proposed to the Committee in response to a sensing of a general concern of members that we strea mline procedure in the House as best we can. There are some things that are done in the House that perhaps may not be necessary and, as I say here, may be more of a nuisance than a necessity.

The matter of Seconding of Motions has been dis cussed with me by some members and it has been a topic of conversation I know amongst the Association of Clerks at the Table in Canada for some time and ther e seems to be a movement away from the Second ing of Motions thr oughout the Commonwealth. I simply offer it to the Committee for their considera tion and I'll leave it at that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, with respect. I would want to suggest that we move very slowly and carefully before eliminating the Seconding of Motions. I certainly agree with what Mr.

Mackintosh has said with respect to the desirability of stre amlining the procedures of the House, and I don't think there's any one of us in the Chamber, and I am sure there is nobody in the Legislative Press Gallery who wouldn't say that some stre amlining of the procedur es and processes of the House would be desirable and I think some could be achieved in certain areas. I'm not sure that eliminating the Seconding of Motions would necessarily provide any significant contribution to that desired objective.

Further to that, I would have to see better arguments than those that are presented here in Paragraph 3 of the supporting notes before I would be very enthusi astic about eliminating the Seconding of Motions. I think that there is a valid reason for ret aining a defense mechanism against potentially frivolous motions.

There are situations in the House relating to specific individuals and it may well include some of us around this table or it may not. but it certa inly includes individuals in the House whom we have all known on 17 both sides of the House who aren't necessarily as committed perhaps to the dir ections of their respec tive parties as· they are to their own individual con cerns. That potential always exists in a democratic assembly and it always should exist; that's part of freedom.

But it also, by being there, by existing, it preserves the possibility and the potential of motions that are not of particular significance or importance to the overall affairs of the day and it could possibly be classified as "frivolous." I think that the necessity of having a Seconder on Motions is a very desirable defense mechanism or protection against that and I really don't see that simply eliminating the reference to a Seconder would, with respect again, do very much in terms of significantly speeding up the proce dures of the House. If somebody wanted to recom mend that Mr.

Penner's speeches and perhaps even mine be limited to 30 minutes instead of 40 that would certa inly speed up the processes and procedures of the House. -(Interjection)- Perhaps, Mr. Penner's to 29 and mine to 30. HON. R. PENNER: Reflecting the disparity in our age no doubt. MR. L. SHERMAN: No, but it's the reverse on the 1.0., Mr. Penner.

Just eliminating the reference to a Seconder I don't think would do very much and I do believe that ther e is some desira bility of protecting the House against individual and, shall I say, persona lly partisan posi tions on subjects that may not have much bearing on the general concerns of the overall Assembly. So I would suggest that we go very slowly on any such suggestion as this one for eliminating the Seconding of Motions. I'd also like to know what the exper ience has been in other Assemblies that have eliminated that procedure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackintosh can you answer the last question? MR. G.

MACKINTOSH: Yes, I've discussed this with the Clerks that have abolished the Seconding and they said that there has been no problem whatsoever. That is all the information I have. I might also add that Ontario, for instance, has abolished Seconding for Second Readings and Thir d Readings. lt maintains it for other substantive Motions - this is the introduc tion of Resolutions and First Readings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Santos. MR. C. SANTOS: Mr. Chairman, I think if other juris dictions have done it and they found that there is no disadvantage at alii see no reason why we cannot also do it.

Sometimes we get so impris oned by formalities without any substantive rationale behind it simply because it has been done in the past. lt's time now for us to get out of the shackles of formalities and do the substantive work of the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. P. FOX: Mr. Chairman, I have no real har d feel ings on this. I do believe Mr. Sherman did indicate

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 some very valid reasons why we should go cautiously. Secondly, I'd like to say that the parliame ntary sys tem as such is teamwork. it's not individuality, although it allows a lot of freedom and which rightly it should and so ther efore I think that it rea lly won't speed up anything in the House to eliminate it. it's only a matter of an expression and getting an agr eement, whoever wants to present something. If you can't get it, then I don't think it's worthwh ile having and that's the issue that Mr. Sherman indicated. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Seconding of Motions right across the board basically is a relevant exercise. I think there is a reason for it and one of those reasons basically is that the House is its own master and should be able to determine to some extent what matters before it are going to be consi dered. The Seconding of Motions is one of those mechanisms with which the House deals with Resolu tions, be they of substance or of a frivolous nature.

If a person gets up on his own little bailiwick, if I was to rise on some matter which the House had no interest. which was a purely singular interest of my own, and I could not find a Seconder, then I think I'd be wasting the House's time for me to ramble on, for however many minutes that we are presently allowing, to bring forward a position which had no chance of going anywhere and which is just basically a vehicle for me to stand and grandstand.

If I wish to do that I would suggest that a person perhaps use his privilege in the House of standing on a Matter of Gr ievance and that vehicle is available for members of both sides of the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else wishing to speak to this matter? Mr. Penner. HON. R. PENNER: I'm inclined to think that we should leave it for the time being.

If a member has something that is not frivolous in vexation and is of substance then I think, as far as I've been informed, that member is always able to obtain a Seconder who is willing to let it go forth for purposes of debate and that no one has rea lly said, to my knowledge, that they have been stifled by or prevented by this Rule from raising a matter of concern in the Legislature. lt has just been pointed out there's always the method orthe avenue of the Grie vance to raise an issue if it can't be raised by way of Motion. I would agree with Mr.

Sherman, let's just leave it for the time being and let's find a little more of the accum ulated experien ce of those Assemblies where the Rule has been changed and we could have another look at it. I wish to conclude with this thought. There is, in looking at legislation and this has been suggested from time to time even in this last Sitting of the House. a mischief rule; that is, you're often asked the ques tion. I know Mr. Graham made this point a couple of times. If there's no one raising a complaint, if ther e's no problem why are you doing it?

Are you doing it just for the sake of doing it, or is there some genuine concern in making the change or introducing the amendment to a Statute or introducing a new Statute? 18 lt has to address some kind of real need rather than just a presumed need. -(In terjection)- No. spoken like a Conservat ive. MR. CHAIRMAN: To the same point, No. 3, Mr. Mackintosh. MR. G. MACKINTOSH: I might just want to defend the inclusion of this topic. I, as well, am very aware that we should not be raising matter s that are not a problem. However.

I see every hour on the hour in the House that the Seconding of Motions is a nuisance to people. Often people become Seconders without knowing it. I know, for instance, the Adjournment Motions, there is often a frantic run to find a Seconder, look around, or the lackofa Seconder and I think it is a little sloppy, so I think there is a bit of a problem there. I concur though with Mr. Sherman, l don't think that doing away with the Seconding of Motions is going to eliminate any problems in facilitating legislation or the study of Estimates, but it is just a nuisance per haps and we'll leave it at that. MR.

CHAIRMAN: If there is no consensus on this matter, is it the will of the Committee to defer it until such time as it is felt a little more urgent? Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. No. 4 - Mr. Mackintosh, anything to add? NO. 4-APPEAL OF SPEAKER'S RULING MR. G. MACKINTOSH: I might add that here there is no problem.

The matter is put forward in a philosophi cal tone in that the Appeal of Speaker's Rulings is a diminution of the Speaker's authority in one sense and, as well, there is an appearance that it politicizes the Chair. lt has been a matter of debate across the Commonwealth and several jurisdictions have taken very quick action to do away with it once the issue was brought up. lt was a matter of conversation at the last Regional Council Meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamen tary Association in Ottawa. I put it forward for your study and consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, I have studied this question myself at some length in the past and the whole question of Speaker's Rulings, the Appeal of Speaker's Rulings, the nature of Speaker's Rulings, as precedents have been something that has troubled me for a long time. I recall having a discussion with Mr. Graham some time ago about the nature of Speaker's Rulings as precedents and I acknowledge what I think is the crucial point here.

I would disagree that the Chair is in any way politicized by a ruling being sustained by the Government majority, regardless of who is in Govern ment, but I would agree that we reach a situation where, because of the necessity for the Chair to be sustained, we sometimes. by having a ruling sus tained on appeal, emphasize the importance·or signif icance of the ruling and make it ther e.fore a precedent that we then look to, because we give it some impor tance by having divided the House on it.

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 I am more concerned about the question of Speak er's Rulings becoming precedents on which there is no further discussion. I think there may well be merit in looking at this whole question from the perspective of how we deal with precedents that are established in the House.

One of the easiest ways we have dealt with them in the past is to say, well, maybe Speaker Forbes, Harrison or Fox made a ru ling 10 or 20 years ago, but that is ir relevant today, we are not bound by it because since then the Rules upon which that particular deci sion was based have since been changed by the House. We have managed to avoid some problems that way. I am more concerned that we deal with the question of how we establish precedents, than specifically the question of appeal.

Now maybe the way around the problem, in terms of what sometimes becomes a bit of a rancorous debate in the House and leaves a bad taste because the sustaining of Rulings by the Government majority in a vote, is to eliminate it. I don't quar rel with that as one possibility, but I would much rather see all rulings be referred to the Committee for discussion afterwards, so that if ther e were any rul ings about which members wanted to have a discus sion in terms of how the Rules are interpr eted or whether or not we want to change our book of Forms and Proceedings, that that's available to us.

I don't think the Speaker's authority is in any way diminished; in fact, if anything, it is enhanced when he is constantly being reinforced by the majority of the Government party which places the Speaker in the Chair. If anything that doesn't help his authority. I don't think it is either enhanced or diminished; I think · it just creates certa in friction over the Rules amongst members and doesn't necessarily enhance the overall consistency with which we are trying to deal with the Rules.

I like to think that members on both sides appr oach the Rules from a non-partisan perspective in terms of making the House work and some way of dealing with that, which may include wiping out appeals, I think that is something we should consider. I appr oach it from that perspective, not solely from the question of whether or not Speaker's Rulings should be appealed, but the larger question of how we deal with Speaker's Rulings in terms of them being precedents, in terms of qualifying them, in terms of being able to, at some point, examine the Rules in the context of those Rulings. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Penner. HON.

R. PENNER: I think Mr. Anstett has a good point involving the status of Speaker's Rulings as precedents. lt is true that at the time when a Speaker's Ruling is challenged, or it is usually the case that when a Speaker's Ruling is challenged is a time of some considerable rancour in the House and that it is more likely than not that the decision that will be made by the House, on appeal. is not a well-considered deci sion, it is not a reflected-upon decision. lt is apt to be partisan because tempers have been raised at the time.

But to resolve that question simply by saying the Speaker's Ruling will be accepted without any forum for cons ideri ng the effect of that Ruling raises other problems. 19 What I would perhaps like to see us discuss here, and I am not as familiar as others around this table are with the history and effect of these things, is this possibility.

Rulings, in effect, becoming precedent are like questions of law, sometimes they are re ally ques tions of fact and we need not be terribly concerned about decisions that are made that are just an inter pretation of what was said or what was not said and that type of thing, but where the Speaker, in effect, is saying, my

interpretation of Beauchesne and trad ition and practice is as follows -and some of us in the House, from either side, it doesn't matter, may be uncomfortable with that or may not agr ee that is a correct interpret ation. lt should be possible, rather than raise it during the course of the debate which, as I said, may be rancorous and you don't really get some thinking about it, to refer it to a Committee like this, rather than challenge it, and say, well, I give notice that I would like that question discussed at some further date by the Committee on Rules; and the Committee on Rules will make a decision as to whether or not -in effect we'd become an appellant court -make a decision as to whether or not it becomes a precedent, whether the

interpretation of the Speaker is to be accepted as a precedent for all time to come. Maybe we need some mechanism of that kind. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ransom. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I certa inly would not want to see the appeal eliminated. I think it is a very useful mechanism to have that in place and I believe it was only used, if I recall correctly, perhaps three times during the most recent Session of the Legislatur e. lt allows for a cooling off period, if you will, at a point when a situation can be in danger of deteriorat ing further.

If, as the material that's distri buted here says, the appeal has been eliminated in the House of Com mons, perhaps that is what lead to the display of peo ple being on the floor of the House in front of the Speaker. If there is an opportunity to appeal, the chal lenge is made, the vote is called and people walk out of the House as a rule and have the chance to reconsider.

I cert ainly can't agree at all with the quotation from B.C.'s legislative proced ure, the Commissi oner's Report, which says, "the seldom resisted temptation to use the Chair for scoring of political points." That certa inly does not apply in our Legislature. I say that the challenge of the Speaker, I believe, was only made three times during the last Session of the Legislature. I think it's a very useful mechanism. I also agree with the concern that's been expr essed by Mr. Ans tett and Mr.

Penner that there should be some additional mechanism put in place to deal with whether or not a Ruling is to be established as a precedent. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackintosh. MR. G. MACKINTOSH: With regard to the concern about a mechanism to review Rulings of the House, that mechanism exists today by way of substantive Motion. I'm not familiar with one happening here in this Chamber, however, I know that at least in the last year it has been fairly common in a number of jur isdic-

I Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 tions. I think here of Ontario. for instance. the Speaker made a ruling on a point of order and a substantive Motion was proposed and given unanimous consent by a Member of the Opposition and dealt with and debated in the House. but that mechanism exists today. Substantive Motion. either by a private member. which would go to Private Members' Hour. or receiv ing unanimous consent which, in all likelihood, would be granted since there would be some urgency to debate the matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, with respect, to Mr. Mackintosh.

I do not believe the mechanism of a sub stantive Motion would in any way addr ess the concern that Mr. Ransom and Mr. Penner shar e with me. I believe the substantive Motion. in effect, allows the House to then debate the Speaker's Ruling, because that's in effect what would happen. and does happen in those jurisdictions where that's done. You then have a debate on the Ruling, on the merits of whether or not it's a precedent. You end up having a debate on whether or not the Ruling was considered by some to be correct.

At the moment of the Speaker's Ruling the House knows it's bound by that Ruling; it doesn't reflect on it, and it shouldn't, because at that point a decision is made and has to be made in terms of how the House will proceed. The only time to discuss that in any way is after a suitable cooling off period and usually after the Ses sion has ended. I think this Committee is the place to do that. To do it in the House, even if it's referred to Private Members' Hour and discussed later on that day or a couple of days later, just rehashes the whole issue on which the House divided in the first instance. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. P. FOX: Mr. Chairman, I'm of the opinion that eliminating appeals on the Speaker's Ruling is a good thing. I do believe that it places a greater onus on the Speaker and it will make him more aware of having to make impartial decisions because he will not have the backing of the majority as is the present case. Further to that. I like the thought of having a review of the Rulings to see whether any of them need to be reviewed in respect to the parameter s within which they were made, because I think that's what we're not doing often enough.

We're wor king at changing the Rules to make them more flexible and mor e workable. but I think we're doing it piecemeal, just like we are today, and I think what we rea lly have to do is look at the whole set of Rules to see whether we can't review them and make them more up-to-date in the light of the kind of work ing system we wish to have in our Parliament. I would suggest that probably we should look at the whole instead of just at the parts and that would get us away from appeals to the Chair anyway in the long run. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackintosh. MR. G.

MACKINTOSH: With regard to the substan tive Motion mechanism, the substantive Motion simply to refer the Speaker's Ruling of, say, December 10th to the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House was. I thought, perhaps a response. lt depends on the word ing of your substantive Motion, but certa inly a substantive Motion can address any matter or pursue any desire. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Santos. MR. C. SANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the function of the Speaker as a position of neutrality in the House, it is imperative there is no substitute for the Ruling being right and correct.

That is the impor tant thing. Ther efore, if an appeal is made to the House and the Ruling is sustained, it means that his authority is in fact bolstered because he had the sup port of the House. So I don't think that being right can be decided by abolishing the very test of support. After all it is the privi lege of the whole House to main tain order and decorum in the House and the Speaker is simply the pers onification of the House, so I don't see any rationale at all how we can find out whether the Ruling is right or not if the appeal itself would be abolished. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I think that we sit here and we tend to view the existing situation in this House as being the only thing that we're considering. There are other circumstances that occur from time to time where the makeup of a House is considerably different than it is today. I refer to two of fairly recent vintage; one in Ontario and one in New Brunswick, where the Speaker was probably tr ying to wend his way through a bunch of broken eggs right from Day One. 20 · I would not want to see the appeal of any Speaker's Ruling changed in any way at all.

If the only avenue left is a substantive Motion, then the natur e of the wor ding of that substantive Motion may be one that would surprise a lot of us and I would not want to see that being the only means of appealing a Speaker's Ruling. I think the present situation is one wher e you have two choices and if the nature of the grie vance is severe enough, then you will see a substantive Motion, but I think this appeal is a very good safety mechanism. The second point, and I think it's one that I have a gr eat deal of empathy with, and that's the point raised by Mr.

Anstett regard ing the review of Speaker's Rul ings. I think it's a very good thing that ther e should be a review of Speaker's Rulings and I would think it probably should be the fir st item of business on any meeting of the Rules of the House. If we haven't been doing it maybe we should be doing it from now on because the Speaker's Rulings do become part of the Rules of the Assembly and we do review the Rules of the Assembly annually by this very Committee and if we haven't been reviewing those. perhaps we should be. I think it would be a very valuable experience and it would be very useful to the Speaker.

I think any Speaker would relish that type of review because it would provide him with the thinking and the assist ance of the House in any future dealings that may arise in the House. I'm spe aking from my own per-

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 sonal experience that, on one occasion, I reca ll where thr ee or four days later I rose and appealed to the House for permission to change a Ruling that I had previously made because I knew. in thinking later, that it was in error. If there is an automatic review through the Rules Committee it may save the Speaker the embarrassment of having to do it all on his own. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak to this point? Since there appears to be no consensus on the matter, would it be the will of the Committee to put this over for further discussion? Mr. Scott. MR. D.

SCOTT: I don't think I would want to chal lenge the Chair 's recog nition of basic agreement among the members of the Committee but I think there is, or at least I've heard several people from both parties indicating that ther e is a role for perhaps this Rules Committee to meet afterwards, or some func tion of the Legislature to meet afterwards, to decide whether or not a precedent can be established by a Speaker's Ruling, if it is upheld or whatever. Is that not correct or am I going too far? MR. H. GRAHAM: Right now a Speaker's Ruling does become part of the Rules of the Assembly. MR. D. SCOTT: Right. Mr.

Anstett had made the sug gestion and a couple of other people had commented favourably on the suggestion. I believe, that maybe we should have a vehicle so that we could address those Rulings to see if we actually wanted them to become part of the future Rules of the House which govern the House. MR. H. GRAHAM: This is what we're doing. MR. D. SCOTT: Okay, but we were just going to set this aside and basically let it die, I think is what would actually happen to it.

What I'm saying is I don't want to let it die, I want to have something come out of the discussion that we've had and I think if we just set it aside until some future time it's going to die. I guess maybe I could make it in the form of a Motion to move that this be brought back at a later date and given with a paper pres enting alternatives to the establishment of a vehicle to be at the Rules Committee. or some other new vehicle, to rule on whether or not a Speak er's Ruling shall become a Rule of the House. lt's rather ram bling. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure whether you're propos ing anything new there, Mr.

Scott. What you're saying is what we in fact do, except that the matter be brought back and that is one way that this Committee works, in that if it cannot reach a consensus on a particular issue it defers it and gives the members the opportun ity to discuss it. If they want it brought back for the next one they make it known and it is, and if there can be no consensus the matter is not proceeded with. MR. D. SCOTT: The only thing that I'm worried about is I don't want to see it just disappear and not come back.

I think it should come back at a future time and if need be I'll suggest that it be brought back on the 21 agenda at a future date. I think the discussion we've had this morning has been very worth while with this potential revision of our existing Rules to have this Committee establish whether or not, or some other vehicle of the House, establish whether or not a Speaker's Ruling is to become a Rule of the House.

I think that's a very valid thing because sometimes, as we've just been discussing throughout the whole mat ter. is it just a govern ing party who is backing up the Speaker on a Ruling that could be favourable to them, or whatever. that we want to see whether or not we want to establish precedents. I guess I'll just let it drop and I'll bring it back if nobody else does. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman. I agree with you that there does not appear to be a consensus on the abolition or retention of the Appeal of Rulings. How ever, as Mr.

Scott suggests, ther e does appear to be a willingness for us to review the question of the estab lishment of precedents and perhaps what we should decide to do is to have a subsequent meeting expressly for that purpose. I'm not about to suggest that we begin -I'm not sur e how far back the previous Clerk's Book of Rulings goes, Mr. Fox, Mr. Graham and yourself might know how far-19 58? I'm not sure that we want to start back at '58.

Maybe we should start with the last session but I think we should sit down as a group and go over each of the Rulings and start working back to determine if there are those that we do not wish to establish as precedents for the House.

They may have solved a particular situation at that particular time. whether they were appealed or not, whether they were sus tained by the majority in the House or not is not par ticularly relevant but ther e may be some that this Committee wishes to recommend to the House in its report to the House that it does not wish to consider as precedents to be binding for future decisions or to be used as guidance by the House for future decisions.

I detect that there's a willingness here to do that kind of work on previous Speaker's Rulings. lt may be that, in the longer term. what is the desire of some to eliminate Appeal of Rulings may be possi ble if we find that we'r e not tying ourselves up into precedents. Then the need for appeal. the opportunity for review is there, the need for appeal might be less urgent at that time if we can make this other mecha nism, this review, work, with the one qualification that Mr.

Ransom raised, the question of the appeal and the ringing of the bells repre senting a cooling off period. ! think that's a very valid point and I don't know how we'll ever get around that if we abolish appeal but certa inly the question of decisions being made under pressure in the House allows no opportunit y for review and I think I sense an agreement that we should be doing that review, so I would suggest that. Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: That was the exact point. I wanted to make the differentiation between the appeal and the review.

• I Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ransom. MR. B. RANSOM: Has Mr. Scott's Motion been withdrawn? MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't accept it. Mr. Fox. MR. P. FOX: Mr. Chairman, we operate by custom, usage, trad ition and by previous Rulings and I concur that it would be a real yeoman's job to try and get back to all the Rulings from when they were recorded. I'm sure that someone that had some time and interest could go through and see those that have been accepted. mor e or less, over a period oftime and those that are left in isolation.

I think those are the ones that we would like to have a look at to see whether they really had substance or not. So if we could get that, and I think ther e's a consensus that we want to review the Rulings in respect to precedent, then our job would be that much less if we could look at the ones that just stand alone and may have been challenged or otherwise, and have a review of that. I don't think there's a rush on this. I think we could possibly just make a note that we desire this and in six months time or so we could have a look at them, if they are available by then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone else? Mr.

Santos MR. C. SANTOS: Mr. Chairm an, even the House of Lords in 1966 declared that it is not itself bound by its own Ruling. While there may be some merits to con sistency and stability in our Procedural Rules. cer tainly the Rules are coexistent with certa in segments of time and as time changes people's perception and values change. lt is up to the Speaker, I think, in his discretion, whether or not to follow certa in past deci sions that have outlived their usefulness. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackintosh. MR. G.

MACKINTOSH: lt has been my observation and it has been the practice of the House that Speak er's Rulings serve as guidance for later Rulings and, to my mind, the word "guidance" is a little bit looser. lt is similar to a judge considering the arguments of com peting lawyers. A lawyer will cite certa in cases to support his stand; a lawyer will cite other cases and ther e will be a different interpretat ion of a method to solve the problem. No two Rulings can ever be the same, cir cumstances will always differ and I know that ther e are many Rulings in those thick books which are simply ignored.

So I would concur with Mr. Fox that there is no pres sing urgency that a bad Ruling, or a Ruling made on a misrepresentat ion, has in the past been ignor ed and that demands for a Ruling in the future will not be predicated on the same factual situation perhaps as that bad Ruling anyway. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it the will and pleasure of the Committee then to defer this matter for further con sideration by members. for consideration at a future date if they so wish and that Mr. Scott bri ngs it forward? 22 Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: That's for further considerat ion. period.

That doesn't nclude the review that was being discussed. the Review of Speaker's Rulings. is that correct? We are deferring this subject for further con sideration? -(I nterje ction)- Yes. the question of appeal. In the meantime we're not undertaking any review of Speaker's Rulings to arm the Committee with that information for the next meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not the intent as I hear it, unless that's wanted by members. MR. L.

SHERMAN: No, I would hope it isn't the intent at this point in time, until we reach a consensus that should be done, but I just wanted clarification on that as to whether that had been accepted as a procedure or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: If any member attempts that on his own I would just rem ind him that many of those Rul ings have been made within the context of the Rules in operation at that time, also in comparison with Beau chesne, whatever edition was current at that time, and ther e have been changes since then. NO. 5-HANSARD INTERJECTION POLICY MR. CHAIRMAN: No. 5.

This is one where the last interjection policy was put together by this Commit tee at the time of the public address system in effect in the Chamber at that time, it has since then changed. Mr. Mackintosh have you anythng to add to what's here? MR. G. MACKINTOSH: I think Item No. 5 speaks for itself. I just simply maintain that I think it's time for the House or the Committee to re-examine its policy. Things seem to have changed over the years without the involved dir ection of the House or the Rules Committee.

I just add that the previous guidance of the Rules Committee in 1973 that all remarks made during the cour se of a debate are recorded causes significant problems for the ad ministration of Hansard in that there are always interjections almost constantly. I think we need some guidance; we need to have some flow of record in Hansard; we have to have some median approach. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is certa inly an item that causes me a great amount of concern, because when you pick up Hansard.

Hans ard itself gives virtually no reflection whatsoever of the debate that took place at the time, or the speeches that were being made at the time, because of the lack of interjections put in. The House of Commons, if you read Hansard from the House of Commons, they identify the individuals who have made it. They have got 285 people,'! believe, sitting in the House of Commons. Their Hansard reporters, both in the House and the people on the tapes, can recog nize the voices and know who the

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 people are. Why we can't do it with 57 certa inly doesn't reflect very well. I guess. upon our own Hansard staff that they are not able to do it,

whereas another body can do it with roughly three times the number of indi viduals who are speaking. To speak of Hansard and to maintain a flow of Hansard, I don't know how you can try and write something up after the fact, after it has been spoken. to try and create a flow that was not there in the first instance. With the present policy of having interjec tions in Hansard only if the speaker having the floor answers to or makes a remark to the interject ion. that the interjection should then be put in as a separate entry.

What that does is that forces the individual who is speaking to break the flow of his speech, to revert from the intent of his presentation to the House to respond to inter jections in the House. I think what you do is you try to force the members who are speaking to get into debate with people who are making interjec tions and I think it's dead wrong to continue along a policy of encour aging people to get into frivolous debates in the House through interjections. lt would be much better if the inter jections were print ed in Hansard as they appeared.

I would suggest that any interjection whatsoever is to be recorded wherever it is audible and wher ever possible that it should be identified and the recorder, both in the House and in Committee as well, can certa inly identify the people, if they were on their toes, who is making interject ions.

We've had some pretty classic interje ctions this past Session of the Legislature. which should have been recorded, and I think if they are recorded it will do and serve as a vehicle, I su ppose. to speed up the impr ovement of the decorum in the House which sometimes I think all of us have been embarrassed at the decorum of our Legislature.

If we are going to continue letting people, if you wish, get away with making rancorous remarks or any other kind of acid remarks on the floor and not be picked up and not be labelled for them, then we are asking for a continua tion of a decline in the decorum of the House and I do not think that is our reason. So I guess, in

summary, I think that we should be trying to make all audible comments recorded; that the recorders, both in the House and in Committee, should have the resp onsibility of identifying people as the interjectees. We have these mikes set up along here for interjections but seldom do you see any record of them in Hansard and it's similar in the House.

I think in the long ru n, in the long term, you'll see an impr ovement in the decorum of the House; plus those individuals who are interested in following the proce edings of the House can get some idea as to why a person who is speaking is all of a sudden changing the dir ection of his speech or his speech is not flowing very smoothly; is that the respon sibility of the individ ual making the speech or is that the re sponsibility of the decorum of the House at the time the speech was made. So I think we've got a long way to go to clean up, not only our decorum but also the repor ting of the House. . Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. 23 MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if we realize that when we're talking about Hansard and inter jections that we are in fact indir ectly criticizing some of our staff. I know something about the opera tion of the machinery in the Legislature and the opera tion of the console, or the board at the back wher e all the recording is done, and we have had some excel lent people operat ing that machine in the past and it has been recorded duly in Hansard.

I want to, at this time, pay tribute to a man who has recorded in this Legislature for long before 1 was ever a member, and he's sitting at the console today, Mr. Ray Sly, and I think that Ray did a job that no other operator can ever expect to duplicate. So when we're talking about interjections I just want to make that little point that a lot of it depends on the operator of the console because our microphone system is such in the Chamber that only one voice can be recorded and it's the operator that has to switch, do some very rapid work on those switches, to pick up a lot of the interjections. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, a couple of points. Fir st, from the paper. In 19 72 there was an effort to pick up all audible, intelligible comments. The Rules Committee asked that all remarks and interjections be picked up even if the name was not known; just show "An Honourable Member." Changes were made in the sound system in the late '70s and now we have a policy that says, "Only if the speaker replies to it." That policy, as I understand it, was never okayed by the Rules Committee and the only firm dir ection received was the one from Febru ary of 1973.

The difficulty I have with that policy is that, contr ary to Mr. Graham's asser tion. I do not believe that we have difficulty picking up the remarks. In fact, if anything, I think the Hansard system, because of the changes that have been made and the sophistication of the system, is such that all remarks are picked up, in fact, on the interjection track they get far mor e than what they need.

Part of the problem is that they have virtually everything that's said in the House now. ln fact, at some points I under stand ifthey switch to the interjection track they can monitor the personal conversat ions of others that are taking place in the front benches close to those interjection mikes. So there is a new system with a great deal of sophisti cation which would allow us to pick up a lot mor e interjections than we have been and would certa inly allow us to adher e fairly closely to the 19 73 Rule, and that hasn't been done; that hasn't been done by dir ec tion because of what it would do to Hansard .

The problem that I see that we face is a question of how much in the way of those interjections do we print, rather than a question of whether or not we can get them. I think they're all there; they're all in the system. We've got a four-track system that picks up virtually ever ything and the Hansard staff are emi nently capable of doing it. I think this was Mr. Scott's point, as well as Mr.

Graham's, that it's not a criticism of Hansar d that it hasn't been put in; that's the dir ec tion under which they've been following. lt's also a question of how much time are we prepared to wait for Hansard if they have to pick up all that and keep

I Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 switching back and forth from one track to another. However, if we stick with the policy that's proposed here. that the interjection only be shown if the member replies to it, several minutes later in the member's speech he might make a reply or it might be an indirect reply. So if it appears to be in any way relevant to the member speaking or to the debate which is being held in the House at that time, I think the inter jection should go in.

The member might choose to reply immediately when the remark deals with his paren tage or the size of his mother's army boots; on the other hand, he may wait for five minutes to reply if the debate or the interjection deals with a particular point in debate which he was going to come to later, at which point he may make reference to the fact that Mr. Sherman suggested a few minutes ago, or a member on the other side suggested a few minutes ago, that such and such was the case and come back to that point a little later; that interjection will never be recorded.

So there's a need for a firmer policy but to say that it will only be if the interjection produces a reply by the speaker will limit the number of interje ctions.

The other point is that there are a lot of interjections which historically have been very significant ones which have shown up in Hansard wh ich, if we stick with a very strict policy as enunciated in the thir d last paragraph -the "only if" policy, would never have shown up in Hansard and yet they've been significant, referred to many times by others in debate but they only got into Hansard because Hansard staff picked it up, not because it was dir ectly replied to by other members. So I think the policy that's proposed here is a little too rest rictive.

Additionally, the concern that some members have that at times the decorum in the House is poor because of the number of interjections might well be addr essed if Hansard were printing more of those interject ions. Members might be a little more cautious about the remarks they're prepared to make by way of interjection if they knew that remark was going to appear in Hansard with their name beside it if Hansard pers onnel could pick up the name of the speaker. Well, those remarks that are pot entially embarrassing certainly would be mor e rest ricted. I basically agree with the analysis here.

I agr ee that Hansard has the ability to pick it up; I would like to see the interjection policy be a little wider in scope than what is proposed here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: I just wanted to readd ress a point that Mr. Anstett brought up that my criticism was not of the staff but of the orders which they've been given to follow on the thing. I think the staff is perfectly able to pick up from the tapes, as a matter of fact they proba bly have trouble trying to listen to the person who is speaking because of the number of interjections in some instances.

So it's not a question of the staff being unable to identify people so much as it is the policy which they have been given to follow, which says that they are not to do it unless the person who is speaking actually interrupts his flow of speech in response to the in terjection. 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. L SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Scott was speaking I was tempted to make an interjec tion but I didn't know whether it would be picked up or not, so I'll hold it for now. You know, some of the best speeches in the House have been made via the interjection form. On balance I agr ee with Mr.

Scott's initial position with respect to the des ir ability of getting as many interjections recorded, that is, recorded in Hansard, as is pract ical. I see one very gr ave danger about a policy that says that only those interjections which illicit a response or some verbal attention from the Speaker shall be recorded.

Oftentimes people in the flight of speech making tend to say things that are not entirely accu rate and make references to something that some body on the other side of the House has said or indicated in a prior speech or in a prior position that are not entirely accurate, certa inly do not reflect what the original speaker intended. That original speaker in that case often interjects in the way of attempting to correct the record. The person who is speaking at that time frequently ignores the attempt on the part of the other person to straighten out the record and pro ceeds with his or her contribution.

That contribution then is recorded for all time in Hansard, and in the case of some members, depending on what particular relevance it has to a particular issue in their consti tuency, is often rather widely distri buted by mail or otherwise to constituents or members of particular community interest groups and can contain misr e prese ntations of what somebody else has said, or attempted to say, during that debate or some other debate.

Now I know that you can jump up on a Point of Privilege, but you, Sir, know better than many of us around this table that is a very difficult point to make unless you'r e prepared to move with a substantive Motion on it. Simply on the grounds of the way some body who is speaking interpreted something that you may have said, does not arm you with the necessary argument to raise a Point of Privilege. The only way available to correct some of those misimpress ions is through interjections. That doesn't make for the best kind of debate, but I cite that as a point that should be kept in mind.

If we go to something quite as Draconian as the suggestion that only those interjections that illicit a response from the speaker will be record ed, I think that we are depriving Members of the House of some of their rights and I would like to see the interjection policy practiced as widely as possible insofar as the recorded debates are concerned. I recog nize there's a difficulty now with the two track systems and the highly sophisticated system.

There's probably a surfeit of interjections descending upon the Hansard reporters' and recorders' ears, but the policy of recor ding them should be applied and practiced as widely as possible in order to protect the rights of the individual Members of the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ransom. MR. B. RANSOM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I' m afraid I have to disagree almost totally with my colleague and

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 others that feel there should be the most wide record ing of statements. I think that there should be no interjections recorded by Hansard. People speak in the House when they're recog nized by the Speaker of the House. They are to speak from their seats. In my view Hansard should do no more than perhaps indi cate by the word "interject ion" in brackets that there has been some sort of interruption of the debate. Oth erwise. Hansard people become those who recog nize the person who is speaking and a person may make an interjection from any seat in the House.

They cannot address the House from any seat in the Chamber, but Hansard could acknowledge in fact that they could address the House in that way. If people are going to have their interjections recorded, they'll be interru pt ing the person who is recog nized by the Speaker of the House. because they know that they will be able to get their interject ion pri nted in the record at the time. I would not like to see that sort of thing happen.

I believe that during my period in the House it's always been acknowledged that comments made from the seat or from some other seat are not consi dered part of the official record. 1t was recog nized as such in one of the last days of the Session when the Deputy Speaker was in the Chair and a remark was made from the seat. it was asked to be withdr awn and then he acknowledged that it was in fact not part of the record because it was made from the seat by someone not recognized by the Deputy Speaker. Further, Mr. Chairman. to remarks made by Mr. Scott.

I would not like to see us proceed in the way that the Federal Parliament has. where it's my understand ing that ther e is a very extensive editing of the speeches that are made there. Those speeches are not verb atim, are not recorded verbatim in the way that ours are. and so the record becomes somewhat more artificial there than it is in our Chamber. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Santos. MR. C. SANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are ver ging into extremes; either we must restrict this. abolishing all interject ions. and then I hear the widest possible inclusion of all interjections.

Like any other area of life the better part of wisdom points, I think. to a rule of modera tion. the golden mean. the desirable middle position meaning anything that is replied to, or any remark that is relevant to the topic being discussed by the speaker who has the floor is certainly part of the spice of life in the Legislative Chamber and should be included. but certainly other remarks that are inappr opria te or are not within the framework of the decorum of the House can be edited out. if they are not all pertinent or relevant to the topic of the speaker who has the floor. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Penner. HON. R. PENNER: To cast upon those who are record ing the debate the task of deciding what is rele vant and what is not relevant, I think, is rea lly to ask first of all that they do too much; and secondly, to put them in the position of making judgments which those who made the remark may not wish to make.

I've been listening sometimes with fascination, sometimes not with fascination. to the debate as it has run its cour se 25 in around the table here and, as I so often am, I'm somewhat persuaded by what Brian Ransom has to say. lt seems to me that if a person has something to say, then the person should utilize the opportunity that the person has to rise in their place and make the speech. This is not to say that persons should not interject. That is part of the flavour of the House.

But it seems to me that what perhaps should happen is that if I am speaking and someone across the way says, "Your mother wears tennis shoes," and I think that's important that it should be noted, I can get it recorded very easily, "The Honourable Member for Turtle . Mountain says my mother wore tennis shoes. He is wrong, she only wore one tennis shoe, that is all we could afford because we were children of the Dep res sion and oh, what a miserable life I lead," or whatever, you can amplify. You can have fun with it or you can get it recorded.

But to ask those who are record ing to make some judgment as to whether or not it was replied to or whether or not it was relevant is, I think, too much and unnecessary. Let the speaker deal with the interjection and if it is significant it will be recorded and, if not, it is ther e for part of the flavour of the House.

I think perhaps that is the via media that we should adopt rather than -(Int erject ion)- No, I am propos ing that no interjections be recorded as such unless the interjectee wants to make note at the time that something has been said which the speaker wants to deal or which the speaker feels should be recorded so that posterity may know that the member opposite has been rude and crude and ill-advised or whatever. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. P. FOX: Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion we are all here to try and raise the decorum of the House, that is why we are discussing Rules.

I would like to concur with both the Attorney General and the Member for Turtle Mountain that the only way we will do that is we don't give credit to those who ar e trying to disrupt the decorum. I think it is as simple as that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I find that Mr. Penner really defeats his argument when he talks about not placing an onus of responsibility on those in the Hansard Office to determ ine what is sig nificant or not significant and therefore that nothing should go in unless the speaker responds to it.

That is precisely a case of placing the onus on the Hansard Office to determine what is significant and what is not significant. That Legislative Chamber is a free arena and the moment that we start moving in dir ections of clamp ing down on freedom of expres sion, no matter how difficult, no matter how unpleasant it may be for one or the other of us from time to time, we begin to erode the climate of freedom that permits a very thorough and conscientious examination of the public interest on every issue that comes before the House.

Since time immemorial interjections have been on the Hansard record and many of them have not been particularly unpleasant. I think that ther e may be

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 some members of this Committee who are particularly concerned about an atmosphere of interjection that perhaps exists in the Chamber at the present time, but need not always exist in that form, and hasn't always existed in that form. If there has been an acerbic ses sion or two, then that's life in democracy. There are other sessions that have not been as acerbic and as belligerent. I think that the practice proposed here and the posi tion proposed by Mr. Penner and, with respect, my colleague, Mr.

Ransom, oper ates precisely in the manner in which they suggest they don't want to see it opera ting. lt puts that resp onsibility for editing and selection really on the shoulders of someone other than the members of the House themselves; whether it's on the shoulders of the Hansard reporter s and recorders I suppose is a moot point, but it is on the shoulders of somebody other than on the persons who are in the House themselves. The persons who are in the House themselves are conducting presum ably, and I think in most cases, a conscientious tho rough investigation of issues of public interest.

If that gr ows unpleasant at times, that is life, that is better than warfare, and it is better than rest rictions on free speech. I think that the evil to be avoided here is an editing function. I don't believe Hansard should be edited in any way. If, as Mr. Ransom suggests, that is what is done in the House of Commons -it certainly was not my under standing but I accept that information -then I think that is a further travesty, and there have been many committed in the last ten years insofar as parli amentary freedom in Ottawa is concerned.

The only reserv ation I would place on this is the technical capability insofar as the Hansard reporters are concerned of maintaining the flow of formal speech making and informal commentary that is now coming at them from such a sophisticated sound sys tem and, obviously, there have to be some minor rules in place in order that they are not deluged by verbiage. But. given those minor parameters, I suggest anything else is an infringement of free speech and an assault on the legislative process. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: First. I would like to back up what Mr. Sherman has said.

I think that all interjections, wher e audible and relevant to debate, and wher e possible to identify the interje ctionist as well, they all should be recorded. Otherwise you are saying to the public who cannot be in the Legislative Assembly at the time, in the gallery, can have an understanding of just exactly what was going on in the House at the time. If a member wants to make some -if I could use the word -asinine remark, then it is his res ponsibility to stand up for that remark in the future and take the consequences with which his remarks are given in the House. Mr.

Fox, on his part, that printing them would some how reduce the decorum of the House, I suggest it is exactly the opposite, that the decorum of the House will improve when members are accountable for the words they utter within the Ass embly and in Commit tee was well, I might add. To suggest, as Mr.

Penner has, that it is dependent 26 on the speaker to interject his flow of speech and respond and quote that individual who made a com ment to him, perhaps he has the speaking abilities to be able to interrupt his line of speech and go back to it, pick up his points and not lose any of the context of which he is speaking, and return to his speech as if not interrupted.

I suggest very few people can do that and most of the people who are members of the Legisla ture are not necessarily profess ional speechmakers, Ministers, lawyers or whatever else and have had a gr eat deal of training in speech so that they can with stand the interject ions. I do not want to see or I would not like to see those people without that sort of train ing have to go through umpteen years of service in the Legislative Assembly before they have the ability that Mr. Penner may have to be able to respond to interjec tions and not interrupt the flow of his speech.

To suggest that the speaker is to sit down after each Session and go through and edit and determine what goes in Hansard and what goes out of Hansard, I think, is putting an unr easonable respo nsibility upon the speaker, a person whose time presently, I think, is alr eady quite adequately taken up with duties in the House. To suggest that he has got to go through every sitting twice is a bit much and I think the Speaker may somewhat object to that too. Mr.

Ranson's suggestion of the following of the Federal House where there is editing; that is not a part of this conversation or a part of this debate at all that we're involved in at the present time. What we're say ing is that the words spoken in the House should be recorded as spoken in the House, not as I wish to see my reply and my speeches indicated in the House.

If I have problems with the matter in which Hansard has pri nted it, then it is my respo nsibility to get up in the House and make a correction to Hansard if they have recorded something which I have not said, so I don't think we're into any kind of a debate at all of letting the members edit their speeches as to just how fine that their speeches do appear in the House. We've got speaking Rules in the House of people not allowed to read text, they're supposed to be speaking basically off-the-cuff with as few notes as possible.

If we go to this other method, wher e only interjections are those interjections where a person responds, then you're going to get more people going in with writt en speeches in the House which is against the House Rules as well.

So, I think that to both impr ove the decorum of the House, to make the members accountable for their own words uttered in the House, be it in a formal presentation when he has the floor or as a person who is either heckling or commenting from the back ground, I think we have the resp onsibility to record this for the benefit both to the public and also for the future decorum of the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett, to be followed by Mr. Graham, Mr. Penner and Mr. Ransom. MR. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The debate in the House generally proceeds with or without inter jections, depending upon the style of the member who is speaking. Some people go into the House -and it changes, even with individual members -either to make a speech or to engage in debate, and when they

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 choose to engage in debate it's very obvious that they're welcoming interjections, that they're making some points and usually if they're trying to score some hard points, or as Mr. Sherman said earlier, represent in some way more favourable to the point they want to make. the remarks of other members, either opposite or on their own side. they're going to get challenged on that. The debate is going to reach a level of interjec tion and banter across the floor which, for some debaters, actually ends up being the best part of their speech or all of their speech and some people thrive on that:

whereas, others don't welcome it and can make a speech and will make a speech without any heed of interjection, and very quickly, because inter jections are ignored, the interjections are kept to a minimum. That depends on style of individuals and some people adhere to one style, some to another, and some are able to mix those styles.

But certainly, for a lot of members in the House, interjections are an important part of their speaking style and they'r e an important part of debate in the House and it's often the replies to those interjections and the nature of those interjections that defines issues and hones some of the points that are being discussed in the House. lt's that kind of information that the press uses. Oftentimes the remarks that seem worthy are the ones that come out of that kind of debate rather than out of scri pted speeches.

As well, those are the kinds of things that ar e used later on in references for the public, for constituents, for inter est groups. So to suggest that we don't want any of those things at all, I think, is going to stultify debate to the point wher e it becomes just a formal speech-making society, in which case we might as well do what they do with the congressional record, "Mr. Speaker, I have a2 0m inute speech but I havet og o and have lunch, so I'd like this put in the record and it can be print ed in the congressional record ," and we can end up having that kind of debate in our Legislature.

I think of our Legislature as a place for debate wher e we actually do influence each other on occasion, although with the party system that may not happen as often as it does. MR. B. RANSOM: I am not arguing that. MR. A. ANSTETT: So if we accept the fact ... if Mr. Ransom suggests he's not ar guing that, okay .. . HON. R. PENNER: Nor have I, no one has been argu ing that. MR. A. ANSTETT: ... and Mr. Penner suggests he's not arguing that. HON. R. PENNER: Would you record that interjection? MR. A. ANSTETT: Well, Mr.

Speaker, with those two interjections recorded I think it's important then that since we're not ar guing the question of whether or not we wish to see real debate take place in the House, then I can't under stand anyone saying, that if you're going to have debate you need that exchange back and forth . and if you'r e going to need that exchange back and forth and have it mean ingful, not only for posterity or for your constituents, but for your self the 27 next day or a week later or a year later when you want to go back and quote someone, then you need those interjections and you need as many of them as possi ble, but I recognize the limitations.

What I find to be an anomaly here is we've deve loped what is supp osed to be a vastly superior system over what we had in 19 73 when we came up with the last Rule, but for some reas on, with this vastly super ior system, we need a more restrictive policy. I think we should ignore the suggestion that it can't be done. I think more can be done, but cert ainly not as far as Mr. Scott would like.

I think we can go to the point of certainly printing all the interjections that are replied to and all that appear to be relevant. and I realize that the word "relevancy" has some problems, so I would suggest that we make it as wide as possible. That's the easiest way; to make it as wide as possible, but I would not agree with Mr.

Scott's suggestion that all interjec tions be printed, because there are times other inter jections and debates going on between backbenchers when someone else is speaking, wher e someone on each side are engaged in banter which may or may not interrupt the speaker, which may or may not be rele vant to the debate. That kind of stuff can easily be ignored, but the stuff which is actively being engaged in as part of the debating framework in the Chamber, back and forth acr oss the floor. is essential and that should be on the record.

I just can't see any way of ignoring that unless we want to just get engaged in a speech-making society and then we might as well mail them in. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, nobody is attempt ing to cur tail debate in the Assembly. Let that be clear. What we are talking about is the production of Hans ard and the recor ding in Hansard of what has hap pened in the Chamber. The Speaker of the Assembly has recognized a particular member and that person is the only person who is recognized by the Speaker to have the floor and to have his remarks recorded.

I would suggest that before we make any decision on this that we go back to the Hansard staff and take, say. Page 1562 or something out of Hansard as it was recorded in the last Session and produced by Hans ard, and have the same page reproduced with every conceivable interjection that was recorded put in it and then you will see what kind of results you're going to have and you would have a document presented or printed that would be absolutely unintelligible.

I suggest you do that and bring it back to the Com mittee and let us examine what would happen if every conceivable interjection was recorded and printed and then we can make a comparison and see what we're really talking about. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Penner, Mr. Ransom and Mr. Scott. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Graham is absolutely right. The last number of interventions here, I think, have missed the point. We're talking about what is to be recorded in Hansard. No one, to my knowledge, cer tainly I did not suggest that we stop interject ions, not at all. Nor can it be said that how, if at all, interjections

I I Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 are to be recorded would in any way, immediately or by the operation of the slippery slope, affect freedom of speech with respect; that's not what was said and not conceivably what can happen. There can be, and will be, as many interjections as members wish to make and the House is willing to tolerate I suppose. My concern, in fact, was with the suggestion that some editing should take place and, again, Mr. Graham is right.

If you rea lly want to pr e serve all of these bons mots for immor tality then you must record them all and instead of an intelligible Hansard you have a hodgepodge. Beauschesne says that the official report of debates, commonly referred to as Hansard. is the record of speeches made in the House; that's what it's there for and my point was that if someone interjects and I'm concerned about it enough I'll reply to it or see in that way that it is recorded.

But to call, and this is my point, really was my only substantial point and remains my only substantial point; namely, that to call upon the staff of the House to act as editors, to say what the staff considers to be relevant and then that will decide what is recorded is to put a task on the staff which I think is not their s at all-and, indeed, I think is poten tially destructive of the parliamentar y process because you have non-elected officials or staff making deci sions as to what becomes part of the parliamentary record. That I think is entirely wrong.

I can't think of anything more erroneous in principle than to call upon them to make the decision. Whether you try to make some distinction, and with respect I've found them to be distinctions without a difference about whether something is banter or interruption or an interject ion, is impossible to do. One person's banter is another person's interject ion, and somebody else's interruption.

I think that the Hansard should record the speeches; there should be as many interjections as anyone wants or, as I said, we can toler ate, but if someone wants. as the speaker, to make some point about an interjection then let the speaker do it. Although Mr. Scott took the opportunity to read me a lesson about my past, present, and future I don't think one has to be a debater or to have debating experience, to make note of something that has been said; that's rather elementary I would have thought. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, as fr equently happens I find myself in agreement with what Mr.

Graham said; and as rarely happens I find myself in agreeement with what Mr. Penner has said; and ther e fore it's not necessary for me to repeat the very valid points that I think they made. MR. D. SCOTT: Fir st, in follow up of Mr. Penner's, "the rationale for purposes of debate in Hansard and recor ding of debate is a record of speeches made in the House," it also contains answers to written ques tions in the Order Paper. Then it goes on to say, "slight verbal alterations are allowed to be made by a member in order to make his meaning more precise and accu rate.

However, he may not, by the insertion of words or phr ases, affect material changes in a meaning of what he actually said in the House." So, what that says .. HON. R. PENNER: That has no thing to do 28 with interjections. MR. D. SCOTT: That's right, it has nothing to do with interjections and what you try to refer to was not a point referring to interjections, it is more of a point referring to the House of Commons procedure. pres ently, wher e people are able to get ba.ck their speeches and edit their speeches before it goes to Hansard for printing.

I think that to try and bring that up and make a relation that has something to do with interject ions is wrong, so it shouldn't have been brought up in the first instance at all. To suggest that we're trying to make the staff be the people, the ones record ing and determining what is relevant to the debate, I think, basically is more red herring than anything else when what you're asking them to do is basically not pick up the audible com ments that can be heard from the front benches of discussions between people; that's what I'm talking about relevant to the debate.

If someone inter jects with something which is relevant to debate then I think it should be recorded. If it obviously has nothing to do with the debate and you have a couple of Fir st Minis ters, or a couple of front benchers from the Opposi tion having a discussion, that certainly has no place in Hansard, it has nothing to do with the speech or the debate that is going on at the present time.

So I think that I'll just close off by saying that if we want to have the public aware of what is going on in the House, to make members accountable for the speeches and for the comments that they make in the House - I think comments, as has been said many times, are a part of the House the same as speeches are virtually-that we should be recor ding all interjec tions wher e they're audible and relevant to the debate, and to identify where possible the interjection is!. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you and I'll be brief. The difficulty has arisen in the last two years with the new sound system.

I think anybody looking over -anybody who is a veteran of the House such as Mr. Fox -anybody looking over the Hansards of the last two decades, ever since Hansard started to be printed, I think it's two decades, would ag ree that interjections are in ther e throughout. They do not make mincemeat out of speeches. There is the occa sional interjection in the occasional speech.

There might be two or three interjections, one line interjec tions in a speech but that doesn't make mincemeat out of the speech and th ose were always recorded and attributed without any difficulty, and in most cases they added considerably to the flavour of the debate. The problem that has arisen is with the new very highly delicate, highly sophisticated floor mikes that pick up the conversations on the benches, both on the Oppositions side and the Government side. I can understand that creates a great difficulty for the Hansard recorders. but those are not interjections.

What some of us are talking about around this table are interjections which are interject ions into the debate directed at the speaker. We're not talking about the conversations that are going on between me and my seat mate, or Mr. Penner and his seat mate. Perhaps we have to look at the mechanical system in the House and even modify it somewhat, even con sider eliminating those floor mikes. We never had any

Tuesday, 21 September, 1982 ditficu•ties with identifying interjections before we had those highly-sensitive floor mikes. So I !hint( we should not throw the baby out with the bath wl!lter. Just because we've got a highly sophisticated sound system I don't think we should move in a Draconian fashion against interjections on the record. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Anstett MR . A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I would think that we are having some difficulty reaching a consensus on this. HON. R. PENNER: Oh, you just think that, you're not sure. MR. A.

ANSTETT: I am sure that we're not going to reach a consensus today because of that difficulty so I would suggest that for the time being, because of the difficulty we've had during the last Session, that we stick with the report of the last Rules Committee in February of '73 until such time as we can agree as a current Rules Commit tee. to come up with a policy that provides some form of different direction. and that policy is laid out in the paper we have before us.

Sincewe can'tagreetochange it I think we'd be well advised to agree to stick with what we have now and, until we can come to some sort of agreement for change, stick with that policy, because if we try to change the policy today to something different I sus pect we're going to continue the debate for some time. MR. CHAIRMAN: For clarification, Mr. Anstett. what the practice is now is not what was agreed to in 1973. That is, you know, the question that's before the Committee right now. Mr. Graham. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, just to correct the record, I believe Mr.

Sherman left the impression with the Committee that it had been the practice at one time to record all interjections. I don't believe it e¥er was the policy that only some interjections were printed. I am not aware of any period when Hansard reproduced all of the interjections that occurred in debate. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fox. MR. P. FOX: I think if we follow the policy that we issued in 19 73, there will have to be some editing, and it was done in the past and I think was done well because it said "audible, intelligible comment spoken in the Assembly." •• A. ANSTETT: lntelligit»e, not intelligent. MR. P.

FOX: So. as I say. we'll have to see if our staff can comprehend and carry out. I'm sure that they will do their best. because ... HON. R. PENNER: I think that's at least an easier test than relevant. MR. P. FOX: That's right, I agree. Because we have more sophisticated equipment is no reason for not 29 giving them a chance. The policy that was enunciated, by whoever, recently restricted them from doing their ;ob properly and I think that wasn't fair for them or for 1.16. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I make the time almost 12:30, is it the wish of the Committee to come back after lunch to proceed or leave this until a different day? Can we adjourn then until 2 o'clock? (Agreed) We'll return to this item.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-rh2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf rh2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1a3039f82c0f1ad26bcc7aae8ff4b439917831fe

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).