ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on RULES OF THE HOUSE 29 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker 2:00p.m., THURSDAY, 7 FEBRUARY, 1980. Printed by W. T.Matwichyna, Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE RULES OF THE HOUSE Thursday, 7 February, 1980 Time: 2:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle-Russell): MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall we call the meeting to order. One of the first items that I have before me is a letter dated January 18th, and the co ntents ar e: "I will be out of the country when the Rules Co m mittee meets on Fe bruary 7th. Would you please accept my resignation fro m the co mm ittee for that particul ar me eting. Si gned Abe Kovnats, MLA for Radisso n.'' So there is a vacancy on the co mm ittee. Mr. McGi ll. HON.

EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr . Chairman, there may be so me question about the wording of that resignation, but I would mo ve that we accept Mr. Kovnats' resignation from the co mm ittee and that Mr. Mer c ier. be nominate d to repl ace hi m. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a seconder for that moti on ? Is that agreeable with the memb ers of the co mm ittee? Wel l then, we'll .. . HON. WARMER H. JORGENSON (Morris): I think it should be understoo d that Mr . Kovnats' resignation fro m the co mm ittee cannot be for on e me eting. He is res igned from the co mm ittee effectiv ely. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER, Q.C. (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, if I just mig ht co mm ent. Just further to Mr . Jorgenso n's re marks, it would be the inten tion to replace Mr. Kovnats on the co mm ittee after the session resu mes, to re-appoint hi m after the sessio n resumes. MR. JORGENSON: Well, when the sess ion res ume s then it's no prob lem. MR.

CHAIRMAN: There are two matters which have been brought to my att ention - one of which is the res ult of a res ol ution adopted by the House, and the other arises from the perus al of the ne w Beauchesne by our Clerk - and I would suggest that perhaps we shou ld deal with these matters first. The first on e is the matter of the inclusion of the Lord's Prayer in routine proce edings. On March 26, 1979, Mr.

Malinow ski, the Memb er for Port Douglas, introduced a Private Mem ber's Resol ution asking that Rule 18 of the Rules of the House be am ended by inserting the words "in cluding the Lord's Prayer" follo wing the word "p rayers" in the first line thereof. An am endment proposed by Mr . Brown, the Honourable Member for Rhineland, referr ed the matter of the inclusio n of the Lord's Prayer in the daily ro utine proc eedings of the Legislative Asse mbly of Manito ba to the Standing Comm ittee on the Rules of the House for cons iderati on , and that am endme nt was adopted by the House.

So that is a matter that is now before this co mm ittee. The Honoura ble Memb er for Inkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN, Q.C. (Inkster): Mr . Chai rman, I would like to spea k to this matter because I did spea k to it when the matter was referr ed and indicated that there had been what I would co nsider progr ess -- and I'm trying to be as unprovoc ative as possible - in removing any kind of orien tation to wards prayers, and we sort of co mprom ised on a prayer which is acc eptable to all of the mem bers, even though different people may have different ideas abou t it. - l-

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MA NITO BA I would obje ct stro ngly to having a prayer which is oriented any closer to any particul ar religio us denomination -- and I think that Mr . Malinowski used the argument that we ar e majori ty, words to that effect, which I am not going to bel abour here because I don't think that it would be a matter wh ich would receive mu ch attention. At the ti me I in dicated that I was opposed to that kind of orientation, that I preferred an orientation which is com plet ely directed towards each of the memb ers.

There can be no mo re person al thing than prayer, even as within one deno minati on. And that a suggest ion, al though I am willing to sort of live with the status quo if I wanted to make a move I would mo ve towards greater liberty of consc ience than less, which I consider the propos al of the Me mb er for Burrows, that the greatest liberty of consci ence is that if we each pr ayed in our own way.

That could be very well established and Father Malinow ski can say the Lord's Prayer and som ebody else co uld say whatev er he likes by one momen t of silence or one mom ent of silent prayer, if you want to call it, thirty secon ds of silen t pr ayer, a mi nute of silent prayer. I really don't care about the time because I think that if you want to calculate the time for the benefit of one partic ular me mber or maybe mo re than one, of how long it will take to say the Lord's Prayer silently, that would be suita ble to me , and I believe would be a move ment in a mo re positive direction.

I believe that the fixing on any particu lar prayer is a less positive direction. The stat us quo is acc eptable merel y because it works and if there was to be a great contr oversy I would settle with the status quo. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any furt her discussion? The Honoura ble Mi nister of Consu mer Affair s. MR. JORGENSON: I perhaps shouldn't even com me nt on it because I agree with the Memb er for Inkster.

When th is matter was first debated in this Rules Co mm ittee so me years ago we spent so me time attempt ing to revise the prayer that had been in use for a numb er of years in order to make it acceptable to ever y one. I think we ac hieved th at and I think we succeeded in having a prayer that everybody see ms to accept and I would be reluctant to want to change that. I would think my preference would be to leave it jus t as it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honoura ble Memb er for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX (Kildonan): Mr .

Chai rman, I would just like to indicate to the Com mi ttee that I am in concurrence wi th what the two prev ious spea kers have said and I would like to also, for the information of those who were not aware of it, indicate that at that time, as Chai rm an of this particul ar Comm ittee, I wrote to a numb er of synods and various councils around the Province of Manit oba, and the total indication at that time was there wasn't a dissenting voice of any kind, they said they were happy wit h what •.. well, they we ren't happy, but they were agreeable to what we had and they had no intention of offering any changes.

Now possibly at that time the ecu me nical spirit was greater than it is now, I am not ce rtain. But, at least nobody wanted to open up the parti cular subje ct in respect to a special prayer for the House, they were satisfied wit h what we had. And, I believe, Mr. Speaker, you prob ably have those letters on file. If some one wants the inform ation it 's there, and so I think that that kind of indicates that this area has been explored and we've co vered the ground already to a great extent. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Having heard no further discussi on, and in the lack of any resolution, we will leave the matter as it is then. MR. BLAKE: I believe we have dealt with it and the Prayer will remain as it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. The next matter is one that has been brought to our atte ntion by the Clerk and it is dealing with the auth ority that we have for a matter of gri evance in the Chamb er. Perhaps it is best that I read the way in which the Clerk has put it on paper. - 2-

THUR SDAY, 7 FEBRU ARY, 1980. At one ti me the House of Co m mons in Ot tawa conducted its Estim at es Re view much in the same manner as follow ed in the Legislativ e Assem bly of Manitoba: that is, a Motio n for Mr. Speaker to leave the Chair for the Co mm ittee of Supply was passed, althou gh only on designated days. On these days it was permis sable for a me mber to discuss any public matter withi n the powers of the Federal Parli ame nt, or to ask for the redres s of any grievance. .

Citation 234 of Beau chesne's Parlia mentary Rules and Forms, the Fourth Edition (1958), Pages 198 and 199, laid down the guidelines to be follo wed in such cases. Wi th the changes in procedure adopted in the Federal House the Estimates ar e now referred to Standing Co m mittees on or before March ls t of the then expiring year. The Motio n for Mr . Speaker to leave the Chair for Supply is no t now used, and co nsequently the Matter of Grievance, as it was previously known, no longer exis ts.

No reference is made and no pr oce dure set down to govern the grievance proce dure in the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne's Parlia me ntary Rules and Forms . In the Legislative Assem bly of Manitoba we have relied on the prov isions of Ci tation 234 of Beauch esne's Fourth Edition to govern our gri evance procedure since our own rules are silent on this matter . Since the grievance proce dure has been removed fro m the current edition of Beauch esne the questi on now arises as to what au thority do we have for the standing practice of a me mber rising to air a grievance on the Moti on for Supply.

The Honourable Mem ber for Inkster . MR. GREEN: We ll, Mr. Chai rman, with all due respect to the Clerk, and I think we shou ld thank hi m for bringing this to our attention , I don't think that there is any change in the Manitoba House, the fact that Beauchesne has a different statem ent in it now. Beauchesne governs us as a matter of precedence and we look to Beauc hesne, and the prece dence which is there is still there; the only thing that is changed is that the House of Co mm ons doesn't oper ate that way any mo re.

And if one was challenging what we now do he would say the House of Corn mons doesn't do that any more and the Sp eaker would, if I would gauge a reaso nable Speak er correctly, would say, yes. But we are not governed by present Beauchesne, we are governed by the practices and proce dures which were in existence when the House of Comm on s had a Motion to go into Supply, and I, therefore, rule that the Motio n for Grie vance is perm itted, and if you'll take that down, when the time co mes you can repeat it back. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX (Kildonan): Mr.

Chai rman, I would just like to add to that that if we have any difficulty and we can't find Beauch esne's Fourth Edition for when we do go into grievances, maybe it would be a si mple matter to take that particu lar proc edure and put it into our ow n rules. We may even be able to impr ove on it because so me ti mes in the Fourth Edition there were am biguities in respect to what Beauchesne said you could or couldn't do.

But pers o nally I prefer a much more elas tic form of proce dure and I would co ncur with the Mem ber for Inkster that we have set our precedents, we have had our parti cular practices and that hasn't changed so we just govern ou rselves by that and if we do have to refer in respect to what we do in Grie vance we go to the Fourth Edition or else we write it into our ow n rules. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I agree that the presen t pr oce dure is the one that should be continued to be follow ed, and ass umin g that we are all in agree me nt with that what we perhaps mi ght consider is reques t ing legislative counsel to draft a rule that the co mmi ttee mi ght co nsider at the next me eting and determine whether or not they want to inco rpo rate it into the written Rules of the Legislature. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Inkst er. -3 -

LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MA NITO BA MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I have a prob le m wi th writin g thi ngs now. I know what the rule is now but when you write it so me body so me day five years from now is going to say a change was made, in 1980 they enacted this rule. It seem s to me that the status quo should govern and there is absolutely no questi on that we would be governed not by the present edition of Beauchesne, and I feel quite co nfident about that, that there is no need for draf ting a rule because the draftsman has on e thing in mind and so me body interprets it later as meaning so meth ing else.

What we know now is that I can get up on a moti o n to go into Supply and air a grievance and nothing you can put into a rule will impr ov e on that, as far as I'm co ncerned, because I have that right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honoura ble Attor ney-General MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chai rman, I don't want to be too technical but the rule that we have in our rules says that in all cases for wh ich prov ision is not made in the rules, or by sessional or ot her Orders, the usages and custo ms of the House of Co m mons of Canada as in force at the time sh all be follow ed.

So if in fact the House of Comm ons is now governed by Beau chesne's Fifth Edition then the House of Co m mons is not governed by Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which is the grievance procedure wh ich we wish to follo w in ou r rules in the Legislatu re. We're agreed -­ there's no disagre eme nt that that's the rule and the pr oc edure we want to follo w.

So I would suggest that there may be so me gray ar ea by the wor ding in the present rule that says "as in forc e at the time ." If we want to continue the grievance proc edure we're agreed upo n then it mi ght be worthwhile to consider a draft rule change at the next me eting of the Rules Co mm ittee and see if it incorpor at es the proce dure that we all want to see follo wed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Mr.

Chairman, again I would like to say that I believe in flexibility but if the Attorney-Gen eral had finished reading that particul ar passage in resp ec t to usage and custo ms of the House of Co mm ons, "as in force at the time, shall be follo wed so far as they ar e app licable to the Asse mbly." Well the Assem bly hasn't changed and we are not wi th Beauches ne's Fifth in that parti cular ar ea so we use our own usages and custo ms to that degree. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discu ssio n? MR. FOX: Mind you I'm not going to be adamant either way.

If the majority wish to have a new rule that's fine, but I think as I say you have more flexibility if you don't write too much down. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Inkster. MR. GREEN: I wonder if legislative counsel sees any prob lem in us just co ntinuing as we are, wi thout writin g anything. MR. RAE TALLIN: Yes. The prob le m is really on the moti on to go into Supp ly which is no lo nger part of the rules of the House of Commo ns. MR. GREEN: But the Memb er for Kildonan just indicated that the rule says "as they are applicable ... -4-

THURSDAY, 7 FEBRU ARY, 1980. MR. TALLIN: "So far as they are ap pli cable to the Assem bly" I think means that you don't follo w the rules and go back to a part of the rules that ar e for a bicame ral sys tem . You follo w the rules insofar as they would app ly to the House of Co m mo ns. But I'm just wonderi ng where you get authority for a mot io n to go into Supply MR. GREEN: You can find that that is the way we do it, it's the precedents in the House, co mm on law so to spea k. MR. TALLIN: But that's not what you're using.

The rule doesn't say you follo w the pract ices of the House, it says "in cases not co vered by the rules or by a sessio nal or other Order, " and ther e is no sessional or ot her Order, "t he usages and custo ms of the House of Co mm ons of Canada", not the usages and practices of this sess io n. MR. JORGENSON: There ob viou sly is no disagr eem ent with respect to the use of the motion itself, I thin k all sides. of the House want to co ntinue with a grie vance mo tio n.

I'm a little bit co ncerned that so mewh ere down the road, it may not be us in this Cham ber, will look at the rules and see that there is no pro visio n for that gri evance mot ion and then it will be curtailed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Inkst er. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, then what if we inserted in that particular paragraph the Rules and Pro cedures of the House of Co m mons as they exi sted as at the date of the enactment of these rules because there is all kinds of changes in the House of Co mmons now and we can take co mm it tees out of the House, I mean it just doesn't make any sense.

Some tim es the law has to conform to co mm on sense and so mebody will say so . But if we too k that particul ar paragraph, what is the date of the enactm ent of those rules? MR.TALLIN: (Inaudib le) MR. GREEN: Well I'd like to go back further because we've been .. . MR. CLERK: You're talki ng about Beauchesne? MR.TALLIN: '72 I thi nk was the last ti me ti me they adopted in total. MR. GREEN: You see I don't know what the rules were in the House of Co m mons in 1972 ... MR. JACK REEVES: Let's be safe and go back to 1954, the date of Beauches ne. MR.

JORGENSON: The rules ac tually were changed I believe in 1968 or 1969, I'm not sure, shortly after the Trudeau administr atio n came in. MR. GREEN: That's right. MR. JORGENSON: But Beauchesne's, the new Beauch esne's was not pri nted until last year. So that pro visio n that you had in the old Beau chesne is no lo nger co ntained in the ne w book and that's wh ere -5 -

LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOB A the difficulty is, and it's the new Beauchesne's Fifth Edition that we're supp osed to be follo wing now. MR.

GREEN: Yes, but it's not merely the grievance moti on that is the pr ob lem on that basis, there are all kinds of rul es of the House of Comm on s wh ich deal with matters which possibly we do not deal with and rather than write an entire new rul e book which I think would be horrendous, I think that we shoul d be governed by our practices and if the le gislati ve counsel can take that par ti cular rul e and say that we are governed by our pract ices and the practices of the House of Comm on s, as co nfirmed by the precedents of this House, shall apply, then we're not worried about the House of Co m mons rul es in Ot tawa and I wonder if we can just ask hi m to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable House Leader. MR. JORGENSON: I don't think that there's going to be any great debate on it one way or the other . Whatever I think le gislativ e counsel may feel is necessary to ensure that we are not violating a rul e or follo wing a rul e that does not exist is satis factory with me . May I suggest that we ask him to draft so me thing that could be appli cable and deal wit h it at a later date. MR. CHAIRMAN: The U.:mourable Min ister without Portf ol io. MR. McGILL: Mr.

Chai rman, the argu ments that are put forward to re main silent in our Rule Boo k with respect to the grievance moti on and rely upon usage and c usto m in the House see ms to me is acce ptabl e but it has the weakness that it gives rather an advantage to senior me mbers who know the usages and cus to ms of the House. What about new me mbers who take their seat and wi sh to be knowledgeable on what they can do and what they can't do in the House, how will they disco ver these thi ngs unless it is so mehow set out for them.

I think we need to co nsider the new members as well as those of us who have been here long enou gh to know what we can do and what we can't do by reason of custo m. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentle men I bel ieve it is quite clear from the discussi on so far that there is absol utely no desire whatsoever to get rid of the grievance, in fact all we're dealing with is finding so me way of making it clear to anyone studying the rul es how a grievance motion is proc eeded with in the Legislative Assemb ly. Is that agreed?

Then perhaps our le gal counsel can take the matter under consider ation and co me up at a later date with so me pro posal s. Those are the two matters that I have before me at the present ti me. I believe the Honourable Attorn ey-General wish ed to raise a matter. MR. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Chai rman, if I coul d perhaps distribute two draft rul e changes. We could follo w the procedure perhaps of discussing them first of all and ob taining the views of the co mm ittee before any effort is made to deal with them form all y.

The first is a proposed am endment to the rul es of the House which would deal with the sittin gs and hours of the Legislature.

I might say by way of backgrou nd that I have reviewed the hours of sitti ngs in ot her prov inces and for the informati on of the co mm ittee, for examp le in New Brunswick they do not sit on Mondays; in the Prov ince of Quebec the Legislature me ets only three days per week, Monday is set asi de for constituen cy work and Friday mornin g co mm ittees me et; in the Prov ince of Ont ario We dnesday is reserved for co mm ittees; in Alber ta they very rarely sit in the evenings, in fact I'm advised that in this past fall they only sat twice in the evenings.

The prop osed rul e change with respect to the hours of the Legislature would add an additional half hour on Mo nday by beginning the sitting at 2:00 rather than 2:30; would add two and a half hours on Tuesday by sittin g fro m 10:00 to 12:00 in the morning and sittin g at 2:00 in the aft ernoo n rather than 2:30; Wednesday would add one-hal f hour by sittin g at 2:00 instead of 2:30; Thursday woul d be the same, but the hours woul d be changed to sit fro m 10:00 - 6 -

THUR SDAY , 7 FEBRU ARY, 1980. to 12:00 in the morning and 2:00 to 5:30 in the aft ernoo n. There would be an optio n to co ntinue Com mit te e of the Supply on Thurs day evenings and, of course, we spend mo st of the ti me of the Legislature in Co m mitt ee of Supply. Of course, during Sp eedup we would sit Thursday evenings and Fridays. It would be proposed to not have formal sitti ngs of the Legislature on Fridays exc ept during Speedup and when Monday is a holiday. . I would suggest that these hours could be tried on a trial basi s.

In fact I would suggest there would not be less hours, but there may in fact be more worki ng hours but that the ti me would be bett er distrib uted and would al lo w fo r co m mitt ee mee ti ngs perhaps on Thursday evenings, certainly on Fridays. On Fridays for those memb ers who did not sit on the co mm ittee that was sitting or if there we re no co m mittee me etings it would give great er ti me , partic ul arly for memb ers who have to tra vel to the city, for constituency matters.

It also gives from ti me to ti me an opp ortunity for Cabinet to have an opp ortunity for a full day's deliberatio ns, and I am sure memb ers fro m both si des will recogni ze the difficulties that Cabinet has in me eti ng while the Legis latur e is in sess io n. The second pro posed am endm ent deals basically with a change in Co m mitt ee of Supply to deal with Minist er's salary first . The rule change in 65(15) and 65(16) is just a reo rdering of tho se two matt ers which pre sently are in the Rules, but 65(16.1) pro vides for co nsideratio n of the Minist er's salary first .

I think this really would accom modat e the wishes of the Opp ositio n. In my brief ti me as a memb er in the Legislature it has seemed to me that during Esti mates, the Mini st er' s Sa lary has been skipped and then we tu rn to Administr atio n and a great deal of debat e goes on in the Administr atio n of a departm ent - so meti mes I must admit at the instigatio n of the in dividual Minist er, who so meti mes provokes a great deal of debate on that it em.

Then it goes on into debat e and repetitio n during individual it ems and then so meti mes for a third ti me the matt er is debated at the end of the Mi nist er's Salary. The pro po sal here is to debate Minister's Salary first and deal with it at that ti me and then move on , for in formatio n purposes, to any parti cular it em that memb ers may have specif ic questions on.

I mi ght say in additio n, there certainly has been an att empt in the past for Ministers to provide in formatio n at the beginning of their Esti mates, but I am att emp ting to obtain the co ncurrence of the Mi nisters to pro vide as much detailed in formatio n prio r to the co nsideratio n of their Esti mates so that that in formatio n is available and a great deal of ti me doesn't have to be spent on aski ng ho w many staff man years are in this area and how does that co mpar e with last year, etc.

I think that kind of detailed in format io n can be prep ared quite easi ly by each depart ment and pro vided prio r to the Esti mates to avoid a lot of unnecessary questio ning so that me mb ers can debate the real is sues. So, Mr. Chairman, I offer these two prop osals per haps for so me discus sio n now. I should poi nt out firstly, in the on e amen dment to the Rules of the House related to hours-- in Rule 2(2), that should read, "· .. the House shall meet on the Friday prec eding that Monday." MR. GREEN: No . 2? MR.

MERCIER: Yes, in 2(2), "on the Friday prec eding that Monday." And then in 3(2) in the second line "say", of cour se, should be "day". One other sma ll -- at the very end in 65(8.1) that, of course, should be "Co m mitt ee of Supply on Thursday" not Wednesday evening. A MEMBER: What was that last one? MR. MERCIER: On the last page, the last pa ragraph, "Com mitt ee of Supply on We dnesday evening" , of cours e, should be "Th ursday evening" . MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentl em en, you have had two pro posals raised by the Honoura ble Attorney-Gener al, do you wish to deal with them separately or together? MR.

MERCIER: Probably separat ely. -7-

LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MA NITO BA MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed we deal with them separat ely? (Agreed) Then the first issue that was raised was the one dealin g with the hours of sitting. It is now open for discussio n. The Honourable Me mber for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Mr.

Chai rman, I concur wi th the Attorney-Ge neral that so me of the other prov inces have apparently less hours sittin g per week, but it has to be borne in mi nd that almost all of the ot her prov inces except Manitoba sit during the Spring and Fall and our suggestion would be that if we were going to have a look at changing the hours of sitting, we should fir st of al l loo k at realloca ting our wor kload to a two-session sittin g of the House wi thout pro roguing, and if that is feasible and is des irable then we would be prepared to maybe have anot her loo k at changing the present hours of sitting. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honoura ble Me mber for Inkster. MR. GREEN: We ll, Mr. Chairman, I am certainly am enable to any kind of a discussio n, but if we did have a two-s ession si tting, in other words, the Fall and the Wi nter, we would still have to know what it is going to look like and I think that we should have so me discussio n because in my view this kind of propo sal cannot be imp lemen ted wi thout co ncurrence on all sides of the House. It is possible to have a vote on it and have it thro ugh here and then you have got to have a debate on it in the Legislature.

Pr eferably if so me situation can be arriv ed at which ever ybody is willing to give a try, then it has a chance of getting through, and that is the way we have been able to work in the past. So I am sort of inviting, if there is any discu ssio n on it, or I mean if there is no discussi on on this issue of whether the prese nt hours, if we sat this one Sessio n or if we sat next year, we didn't have two Sessi ons , then is the po sition fro m all me mbers that we sit in exac tly the same way as we are sitting now. I wish to make it plai n, Mr.

Chai rm an, so that there is no mi sunderstanding, that I will vote - if it ever came to a vote - I would vote for what the opposition wants to have, even if it is not entirely in accordance with what I think. I think it would be unwise to push throu gh so me thing in the opposi tion; but is there any discussi on that the mem bers wish to have regarding what we are doing if we do n't have two sittings. If we don't have two sittin gs, then is the suggestion that we do exactly as we are doing now or is there any way of im prov ing it? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honoura ble Attorney-Gener al. MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, wi th respect to the two-sittin g pro po sal, I think we would find on both sides of the Legislat ure a great deal of sympathy to wards sitting Sprin g and Fall, or Fall and Spring, however that may be. I would pers onally think it is not too far off before that idea will be accepted. But I would be int erested in knowin g what would be the objections to this pro po sal. One, I suppose, that if you co mpar e what's in the Rules with what's prop osed here is that you would lose a Pr ivate Membe rs' Hour.

But again, in my brief two years here we have never used Priv ate Mem bers' Hour on Fri day ever, that I can recall. So I don't find that a partic ular ob jecti on . I've heard so me discussi on that perhaps there's so me concern about co mmi ttees. I think that what in fact this does is provide a much better system of scheduling co mmi ttee me etings.

For examp le, allow ing those me mbers who surely would be noti fied at the beginning of the week that a co mm ittee was going to me et on Fr iday, if they were on the co mm ittee they could plan on bein g there, if they were not on that partic ular co m mittee that was me eting they could plan on doing co nstituency work. I think it allow s for a mu ch better use of me mber's time to accept changes in these rules, Mr. Chai rman. So I would be very much inte rested in knowing what the sp ecific ob jections were to these proposed rules.

Again I would rei terate my suggest ion is that we try the m out for a trial period and we just mi ght find, eit her at the end of the sessi on or perhap s even mi dway through the sessio n, - 8-

THURS DAY, 7 FEBRU ARY, 1980. that it's not what we all as legislators want to follo w. I can assure all me mbers that we would be very open on that , but I th ink the re is roo m for so me im prov ement in what we have now and I thin k th is would provide for so me im pro ve ment. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honoura ble Memb er for Kil donan. MR. FOX: Well, Mr. Chai rman, nothing is perfec t and it is tr ue that we may be able to im pro ve things, but at the presen t ti me, under th e propos al of the Attorney-Gen eral, it seems as thou gh the opp osi tion is losing 90 mi nutes.

We are lo sing one qu est io n period, we are also losing the Pr ivat e Membe rs' Hour. It may be that it hasn' t been ut ilized as it should have but it was at the opti on of the op po siti on to use it or not to use it. If you change the rules then th ere is no opti on any more , it's gone. And the same th ing as I said in respect to the question period, it takes one

part icu lar day out of the quest ion period which we no lo nger have. Now possibly we could co me to so me co nclusio n in respect to adding anothe r questio n period on the days when we sit tw ice, but I am not certain we could incorpor at e that without having to start the House all ov er again, unless we have a

part icular special rule writt en in to indicate that there would be tw o quest io n periods in one day. So you arrive at so me difficulty there. But the other ob jecti on, which is prevalent for the opp ositi o n, is the fact that we go into speedup quit e often fairly early and we are sitt ing three ti me s a day and it is si mp ly to try and get done before th e end of June or the mi ddle of June or so meth ing to that nature.

And since we have that kind of work that we have to have th e speedup, then wouldn't it be much more logical to split our workl oad, re-a llocate it and do it twi ce a year and then have a loo k at the hours of sitt ing to see whether we can't im pro ve on them th en. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Mi nnedosa. MR. BLAKE: We ll, Mr.

Chairman, I'm pretty flexible on th e matt er of changing the hours, and as a rural me mber I know that it would faci litat e the work of the rural mem bers to get back to their const it uency on a Thursday evening rath er than a Fri day, where you get so meti mes bogged down on weekends wit h calls and what not when you maybe should be spe nding so me ti me at ho me or with your family. But as the Attorn ey-Gener al me ntioned, it is po ssible that we could do this on a tr ial basis, and I don't know whether I will not see this carved in sto ne either.

I thin k maybe if we tried it for a session and if it is not working the opp ositi o n can say, "Loo k we're losing our quest ion per iod, we 're losing our Pr ivat e Me mbe rs' Hour, it's not really what we want, let's go back and hash it over." I have been on both sides, have seen quest ion per iods as we all know, whether we like to admi t it or not, wasted day aft er day after day. You go thro ugh the 40 mi nutes but you really don't gain anything. It's a proc edure that we go throu gh and in oppositi on naturally you're not going to want to give it up.

But I thin k the re's so mething here we can be flexible on. I fully believe - we'll be criti cized I know if we say we're going to cease sitt ings on Thursday and we're going to go back to our const ituencies, and they're going to say, well we want to lessen our workl oad and the same take-home pay and that whole argument is going to co me up. But I can't help but think that it would be a good idea to try it to see if it is going to benefit us.

If it's not going to benefit us let's get back down and discuss it and say, "A ll right, this hasn' t worked, that has worked," and me rge into a concensus and say, "A ll right this is how we are going to have it from now on". MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Inkst er. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I thin k that there ar e certain prob lems associat ed with any change and I always felt that I'd like to look at change from the point of view of how they effect me if I was in opp ositi o n, or how they effect me if I was in governm ent.

And I think that all of the points raised ar e reaso nable points and so metime s when you ar e tr ying to make a change it is possible that it can be done if you alle viate the fears by sliding into it, if it's good, rather than not . And this suggest ion that th ere be a tr ial is one way of doing it and I am going to try -9 -

LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MA NITO BA to see whether there isn't so me thing else that can be done whic h would co mm end itself to see whether we can deal with the fears. One prob le m is the Private Memb ers' Hour and I am thinking of a way of restoring it - yes , to restore a Private Mem bers' Hour - even the on e that I will co ncur does not exist . I will concur that it does not exist and won't exist; that memb ers are going to go ho me at 4:30 on Friday. I say that as sure as I am si tti ng here in this chair ri ght now.

But nevertheless, on paper it is there, maybe we can restore it so that it is no worse than it was before. MR. JORG.ENSON: Make it meanin gful. MR. GREEN: I didn't say that. To make it exactly as it is now, which is quite a difference than saying that I would make it meaningful. Secondly, that there be so me facility for co m mittees. Thirdly, that the questio n period not be offended. And I don't thin k, al tho ugh at one ti me I po sed the fact two questio n per iods in on e day, that doesn't to me satisfy an opp os it ion point of view because it dilutes the first quest io n perio d.

I'm lookin g for how this is going to be loo ked at publicly, and if I have two question per iods it's no better than one questio n period, it 's stil l a questio n per io d. One item wasn't me ntio ned that I would be concerned with, but maybe that's because I'm different than everybody, that I believe in politics. I'm worri ed about the weekend coverage; nobody else is worri ed about that. But I thin k poli tica lly, so I'm worried about it --(Interject io n)-- yes, well, you know, that's my pecul iari ty.

I'm worri ed about the Saturday coverage; if I leave out Friday, am I going to miss so me thing on Saturday? Is that the best news day, because people sit and read the paper? So I am worr ied about that.

I would like to ask the Attorney-Gen eral to si t down and see whether his gro up - and I mi ssed the House Leader of the Oppo sit io n saying-- what if we did just a li ttle different and tri ed by me eting only on Friday morning, just to start with, if we me et on Friday morning, that people get home at 12:30 on Friday -- and I'm not going to say 12:30, I'm going to say 1:30, but I know it 's 12:30 -- I'm going to say that the House will si t at 10:00, that it will adjourn at 1:30, and the last hour will be Private Membe rs' Hour, and at 12:30 I fully expect the House Leader to get up and say, "I believe there's a dispo sit io n on the part of everyone here" ...

I mean, I'm me rely predicting what I think will happen and if it doesn't, there's the Private Memb ers' Hour, there's the Qu estio n Pe rio d, there's a half day gained with very li ttle else happeni ng, and then I would not work Wednesday morning. I would work the two hours -(Interject io n)- so mewh ere here I thought that you would me et ... I would not work any ot her morni ng. I would work starting at 2:00 o'cl oc k, whic h makes up for the hours -- there's only two hours lo st now, eh? Because I've taken off the one hour, put it on to 12:30 to 1:30, so we on ly lose two hours.

We pi ck up the two hours by mee ting at 2:00 o' cloc k every day, and we have exactly the same amount of hours that we have now. We've got our questio n period, we've got ou r Private Me mb ers' Hour, and the opposi tio n has a chance to see whet her they're goi ng to lose a great deal if they eli minate that Friday morning, which is what the government me mbe rs would like to do so they'd have the whole day. It may be that that would be a way of easing in without testing the whole proc edure.

Now I have one additio nal suggestio n, and this one I expect so me ob jectio n t o, but I'm goin g to raise it anyway to see how far it gets, that the governm ent House Leader can cancel Friday morni ng if there is a co mm ittee me eting scheduled that Friday morning, only if there is a co m mittee me eting scheduled on Friday morning. Now we've still got the Friday mee ting, but not everybody has to co me . We've still got the coverage, maybe ther e would be better coverage of a co m mittee me eting than there normally is, and you'd lo se a Ques tio n Per iod, but everything else you'd keep. MR.

BLAKE: But that's at his opt io n, if he doesn't want to cancel it, he doesn't have to. - 10-

THUR SDAY, 7 FEBRU ARY, 1980. MR. GREEN: Well, you know, because I know that it's the opposition that is a problem when it comes to rule changes -- and I say that kindly - I would say that maybe at the oppo siti on's option or with concurrence. I would even try this last busi ness with concurrence, that the House Leader go up to the House Leader of the Opp osition and say, "Look, we want to me et Public Util ities tomo rrow mo rning, can we cancel the House tomo rrow," and for awh ile let' the oppo sition call the shot.

If we find that they're goi ng to say, "W ell, if Public Util ities meet s tomo rrow, that's a good ti me and we're going to tear shreds off Mr. Justi ce George Tritschler. Let's forget the House tom orrow." But it would be at their option, and I happen to thi nk that if it's a good co mm ittee me eting that everybody else can go home. But that be not as a rule change but be as an attempt to achiev e acc omm odation to see what happens. That way you'll get your Friday off too. Only if there is a corn mittee meeting sche duled, not if there is no com mittee me etin g scheduled.

Now that's not going whole hog with what the House Leader wants, but if we can get so me co nsensus on it, it gives us all Friday afternoon. Friday aft ernoon is a big afternoon, and it happens also to be a rather dead afte rnoon. This is thi nking along oppos ition lines, you know, the opposition doesn't lose a great deal Friday aft ernoons. MR. BLAKE: The press always leave at noon. MR. GREEN: Well, you know, I'm sugges ti ng that we have Friday afternoon ext end to 1:30, but I know that it won't happen. It's a cheap suggestion, but I'm suggesti ng that it be in the rule on that basis.

Given the fact th at I don't think from what I hear the Me mber for Kildonan saying, that you're going to get this without a fight and if you're goi ng to have a fight, then it 's not worth it, that maybe you should try thi s, because that would eli minate Friday afternoon and people will find out whether they're getting the same amo unt of work done. But I ask the House Leader of the Opposit ion, is there som ething terribly objectionable about what I have just said, because if ther e is, then I would want to try and modify it.

But that way you've got the Friday coverage, you've got your Ques tion Peri od, you've got your Private Mem bers' Hour, and you've got the same num ber of hours by me eting at 2:00 and Friday afternoon is off. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honoura ble Memb er for Minnedosa. MR. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, I know that there's no-one believes more in the system and the instituti on here than the Mem ber for Inkster and wants to see it work as well as it can and I can agree with hi m wholeheart edly on what he's proposed.

The only thi ng that disturbs me a bit, and I don't know how im po rtant it may be, but we've had over the years an establish ed sort of ti me and set of rules, and we have thousands and thousands of school children that come here and they want to see the House sit and they want to see the Mace brought in -- (Interject ion)-­ that's ri ght, and we would have to do it in such a way that we're not going to take that privil ege away from them. I don't know how im po rtant that is. As I say, I me rely bring that up and raise that as a point.

I don't know how many come Friday afte rnoons comp ared with Thursdays or Mondays. It may be a very very insig nificant thin g, but it just occ urred in my mi nd that it's so met hing that we wouldn't want to take away fro m them if it's an im portant factor. I don't maybe think that it is. It coul d be worked in that they could co me Friday mo rning or Thursday. MR. GREEN: Your propos al takes it away altogether on Friday, this way at least leaves Friday mo rning. MR. BLAKE: That's ri ght. If I finish Thursday night, I may go home Thur sday; if I finish Friday at noon, I hope that I'll go home Friday at noon.

I may not go home unti l Saturday, but that would be my choice and not the House's. - 11 -

LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MA NITOB A MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further disc ussi on? The Honoura ble Memb er for Kildonan. MR. FOX: I am prepared to look at the suggested procedure that the Ho nourable Me mber for Inkst er has suggested, but I can't make a decision on it myself. So if there is no urgency, I'm prep ar ed to have a look at it with my caucus me mbers and make a decision to see whether they're prep ared to use it for a trial perio d. MR.

GREEN: Let's make sure we all understand, th{lt Monday through to Thursday there would be no changes except we me et at 2:00 o'clock ins tead of 2:30, and everything else stays the same. In other words, we don't me et Tues day mo rning, that we me et Friday fro m 10:00 unti l 1:30, with the last hour being Private Membe rs' Hour; that we talk about the House Leaders agreeing that where there is a com mittee me eting scheduled on Friday mo rning, that with the concurrence of both sides - and you don't even have to say this -- that the Friday session no t proc eed.

That really doesn't have to be said, but that can be an attem pte d practice . And we 've said this before , that we would try. We did tr y wi thout putting it down in the rules , that the opposition would name the com mittees that me et outside of the House, and we did that and it worked. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Atto rney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chair man, up until this point in ti me, with all due respect to the opposition House Leader, I have not been informed that there was any in clination of so meh ow trying to adjust or accom mo date everybo dy's wishes to ar rive at so me thing that was mutually satisfacto ry but the opposition House Leader has indicated that he is pr epared to look at the proposals and some of the discussions.

I have so me concerns about what the Memb er for Inkster has raised but in order to try to come to a mutually satisfact ory acc ommo dation of everybody's wishes I would certainly prefer that and I think everybody would prefer that.

So rather than introdu ce forma lly the suggested ame ndments I would be prepared to si mp ly leave this matter in abeyance for the present ti me and allow the opposition House Leader and I to review this matter further and review perhaps even the transcript and the suggestions that have been raised and perhaps we'll call the Rules Corn mittee again early on in the Sessi on, during the Thron e Speech Debate , and perhaps by that ti me we will have been able to come to a solution that satisfi es everybody's int erests. MR. CHAIR MAN: Is that agreeable? The Honourable Me mber for St. Vital. MR. D.

JAMES WALDING (St. Vital): Mr. Chair man, as we've said before to the Atto rney-Gen eral the opposition caucus had quite a clea r consensus opposed to the change to a four -day week . I belie ve, as Mr. Fox says, we're prep ared to consider the changes outlined by the Me mber for Inkster. There had been so me mention made earli er on about a mo ve towards two sittings a year; I'm really not clear from the govern ment repr esentatives as to how they stand on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honoura ble Att orney-Gener al. MR. MERCIER: I suppose , Mr.

Chairm an, we stand the same way as the memb ers oppos ite stood when they we re in govern me nt, that there are so me wi thin each caucus who would like to move in that directio n but there has been no decision yet arrived at so there is no firm posi tion yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for St. Vital. - 12 -

THUR SDAY , 7 FEBRU ARY, 1980. MR. WALDING: Can I make a request that at our next meetin g you might be prep ared to give us a firmer indication than that? MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, before the Memb er for St. Vital, with regard to the· two se ssio ns that are held in the ot her prov inces, is that a rule? Because my im pressi on is that the sessi ons are called on the advice of the Lieut enant-Governor -in-Co uncil and that what they ar e doing is holding th at right now and I suppo se that they co nsider that the Lieutenant-Go ver nor-in-Coun c il could have called a sessi on in the fall.

But is it a rule, is it a rule in the ot her ju risdictions or just when they call it? -- (Interjecti on )-- Yes. It seems to me that what the Me mb er for Kildonan and the Memb er for St. Vital are urging is not a rule change but that the Lieutenant-Governor -in-Council thinks in te rms of meetin g more -­ wit hout trying to cra m the sessio n into Febr uary to June but me eting in the fall and I gather that they too have been thinking that way. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Me mber for Minnedosa. MR. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, that's right.

I think we've had so me discussio n in our caucus on - in fact we 'd hoped this year that we may have called it in Decem ber and run throu gh part of the legis lat ion, the Thr o ne Speech and the De bate and then adjourned and co me back in the later part of January maybe and carry on and legislativ e counsel has indicated to me that the ot her prov inces - it's only one sessi o n, it's not two sessions as I indicated, to double their pay. They br eak a ses sion and then reconv ene it. So I can't see any problem there .

The Attorney-Gener al me ntioned earlier that we're working towards this we just haven't been able to get it into place yet and I think it would be quite desirable in ou r particul ar instance here that we could spread the workload a little better and you could have a bit of a breathing space in between and I think it would work very very well if we can arrive at a me thod of institutin g that into our Assembl y rules . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Me mber for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Just a matter of clari fication, Mr. Chairm an.

When I suggested the two sessions it was not two separate sitti ngs but an adjourned one session. There are so me advantages to it, because if you split up the session the ti me in between can be utilized for co m mittee work, it can be utilized for the public getting involv ed in whatever legisl ation ther e is and we wouldn't be doing it under pre ssure. At the present ti me often when we're alr eady into speed-up we're getting bills that have to have repr ese ntatio n from the public and we find ourselv es sittin g up until midnight and asking the public to sit here to make their presentati on.

I think wit h a split sittin g you could allocate a lot of that kind of work to the hiatus, to the in- between period and you could do it much more leisurely and much more cogently too. MR. GREEN: I have no objecti on in princip le to this kind of thinking, I am not nearly as sanguine about the fact that the work will be done more leisur ely.

I believe that there is a great danger in that the Parki nson's rule applies more to the length of parlia me ntary debate than it does to managerial adminis trativ e work, that the length of parlia mentary debate wi ll expand directl y pro po rtional to the length of ti me in which it is available for it to be taking place. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney-Gener al. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a brief co mm ent on this whole ar ea.

In order to attemp t to solve the problem that the opposition House Leader has referred to we have tried during the past two sessions to introduce legisl ation as early on in the session as possible so that it's available and can be ... - 1 3-

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MA NITO BA MR. GREEN: Yo u tried but you didn't succeed. MR. MERCIER: No, I think we have succeeded in introducing the bulk of the legisl ation at a pretty early date . We had a lot of difficulty gettin g the opposition to deal wit h it but once they joined in then it was dealt with. But the Memb er for Inkster raises the correct position, it's not a rule change that's being proposed by me mbers of the opposition it 's a matter of the govern ment as a govern m ent deciding when the session shall begin and adjourn and reconvene, etc.

And while there ar e advantages there ar e disadvantages too, not the least of which the Me mb er for Inkster refers to, and a concern maybe of some people, that the fall deb ate may to a great extent be just a repetition of the sprin g debate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recog nize the next spea ker there's a small matter, I think the Attorn ey-Gener al previous ly asked that we would look at the transcript s of this. Pe rhaps it would be advisable that we have a mo tion that the proceedin gs be transcribed and distribute d. I don't think we've had that motion. MR. MERCIER: That was in English. MR.

BLAKE: I was going to add, will they be available in French? MR. JORGENSON: We record but we must have a mo tion to transcribe. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion that the proceedin gs be transcribed. Is that agreeable? (Agreed) The Honourable Memb er for Crescentw ood. MR. WARREN STEEN (Crescentwood): Mr.

Chai rman, I just wanted to say that I am sure that if we were to follow the Attorney-Gener al' s outline of hours of sittin g, the proposal that is before us, that the session would still last 90 to lOO sittin g days and even though you mi ght only be sitting four days a week, that we would still in total have likel y the same num ber of days. It's been so me years since we had the 60-day sessions and so on and it just seem s to be co mmo n prac tice now to sit appr oxi mately lOO days a year. I personally like the propos al the Attorney-Gener al presen t ed today and I was hopeful th at it would have passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There has been an inclination to deal with this matter at a later date. I think there has been so me very fruit ful discussion on it at the present ti me . Is ther e anything further on that parti cula r matter? If not we'll move on to the next propos al that was put forward by the Honourable Attorney-Gen eral and that was the pr opos al dealin g with the handling of the Minis ter's salary in Corn mittee of Supply. The Honourable Me mb er for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Mr. Chair man, we feel that it has worked out fairly well and also quite equitable in res pect to the allocation of hours.

It's true that som e Minis te rs have brought it on the mselves that debate has developed early in the considerat ion of the Esti mates for some departmen ts and this is also possibl y true of some of the opposition mem bers who want to make speeches instead of staying within the parti cular guidelines that we happen to be at that particul ar mom ent.

But there is one salient feature ab out having the Min ist er's salary at the end and that is the fact that since we have the two- commit te e syst em many me mbers cannot attend both com m ittees at the same ti me and this is one advantage that they have, that at the tail end if their parti cular ite m has not been discu ssed or debated or at least - 14-

THUR SDAY, 7 FEBRU ARY, 1980. touched on they can st ill have a chance to go at that

part icular matter whatever it happens to be. Some of our mem bers would probably prefer to have brief introductory co mm ents after th e Mi nist er has made his openin g stat ement but we also recognize that you can't have it both ways. We could po ssibly loo k at giving them five or ten mi nutes to just make general co mm ents to co mplim ent the depart ment and then carry on from there to the detailed items . But that would be going in th e opposite direction to what the Attorney-General wants, he woul d li ke to have the debate over and done with.

In the past, as we all are aware, when we had the Ministe r's Salary first so meti mes it too k mo st of the time of the debat e and the detailed it em s were just passed over quickly and glos sed through. I think we have done a mu ch bett er job since we have gone to the new sys tem wh ereby we leave the Ministe r's Salary to the end. The detailed it ems have been very well debat ed and only those features that haven't been touched on are brought up during the Minister 's debat e. And of course depending on the Ministe r's attitude that will creat e or le ssen debat e. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister of Consu mer Affai rs. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, what the Memb er for Kildonan says is quite true exce pt for one thing ana that is it hasn't been workin g. The fact is the origin al intention of the st ruct ure of the rul es as they are now was to leave the Ministe r's salary until the last so it coul d be debated then. It is quite obv ious that mem bers of th e opp osition -- and that includes memb ers of the previous oppositi o n as well - are not inte rest ed in debating the Ministe r's salar y at the end, never have.

I think you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of ti mes that th e Min iste r's salary has been dealt with. There is an incl inat ion and it's quite natural, a natu ral inclinat ion on the part of memb ers to get at the Mi niste r imm ediately he is introducing his Est imates. All we're doing is prov iding that opp ort unity, we're trying to accomm odate you. What you're doing now is co ntrary in my opini on to the rules, by going on to the next item and then debating the Mi nist er's salary on th e Administr ative it em.

What we're going to do is to try and provide you an oppor tuni ty to debate it right away and have that debat e and get it over with. We're not trying to take anything away fro m you, we're try ing to accom mo date the opp osi tion by prov iding an oppor tu nity fo r that debate imm ediately and I th ink that's the best time for it. Experience in the House has indicat ed that's th e best time ; experience in th e House during th e course of the last four or five years has indicated that that's the time that the memb ers want to debat e.

All right , if they want to debat e at that time let's give them the oppor tuni ty to do just that. I mi ght say with respect to your po int about memb ers who may not be at the co mmi tt ee at that time , they'll have an opp or tuni ty if that debate is going to st ret ch on , the Ministe r's salary is going to stretch on over tw o or th ree days. Surely, during the course of those tw o or thr ee days that memb er who wants to spea k can co me in and make a speech. If he can't, then he has a furt her op port unity wh en th e Main Supply Mot ion is bro ught in, there is another full-fl edged debat e.

So there are plenty of opp ort unities . All we are att emp ting to do is to legal ize what is happe ning right now and that is a debate on the Ministe r's Salary which is now taking place at the beginning of the Est imates, and then you have the opp ort unity again at the end. Well , as my honourable friend says, you can't have it both ways. If you ar e going to debate at the outset, then fine, we will acco m modate you, but if you are not well th en I don't think that we can perm it what is going on .

That is a violat ion of th e Rules - I have always said it was a violation of the Rules to debat e the Mi nister's Salary under th e Administ rat ion Item . I have prot este d it both when I was in the opp ositi o n and since I have been in govern ment. I don't think that it is in accordance with our Rules to be debating -- it was never inten ded, if you ar e spea king of the sp ir it of the Rules, it was never inte nded that th e debate take place under th e Admi nistration Item, that it would be taking place at the end of th e Estim ates when th e Ministe r's Salary came up for debat e. It hasn't worked.

Why tr y to co ntinue so methin g that isn't worki ng? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honoura ble Memb er for Inkst er. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to start by indicat ing that I believe that I am going to take exactly - 15-

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MA NITO BA the sam e po sition that I would have taken regardless of my own parti cular change in status. I don' t believ e that the debate on the Estim ates is going to change no matter what the rule is and that it is correct to say that the me mbers of the opp ositi on have attem pted to get at the more meaty po ints of the Minis te r's Estimates at the beginning, no matter wh ere they appear on the list, and to fail to recogn ize that is me rely to put blinkers on.

I know th at in support of various members of my grou p I got up and argued on a moti on or an obje ction on the basis of relevance , but the House Leader has got up and said this has to wait until you get down the list. I have got up and said that's not true, we are no w debating the Deputy Minister. Everything that's in a depar tm ent falls under the Deputy Ministe r and this can be done . Wi th all respect to any prote stations that that is not going to happen, I say that it is going to happen , because I have seen what has happened.

By the way, just so that there is no mi sunderstanding, I said it would happen anyway. And what we are inviting if we try to suggest ot herwise is that we ar e going to invite an ob jecti on as to rel evance. We ar e going to have the Chai rman rule in favour of that obje ction so me day. We ar e going to have the government members support the Chai rman's rul ing.

The discussion will held to be out of order, the bells will ring, there wil l be prote sts and what have you, and then the next Item will co me up and there will be another contorted debate on the question of relevance as to whether so me It em wh ich is No. 29 ob liqu ely falls into so me Item which is No. 2. No w, I believ e that that is what is going to take place and I believe th at that will take place whether you change these Rules or don't change these Rules, that that is where we are going to be.

The memb ers of the House want to, at the earlies t mo ment, when the Minister gets on his feet, deal wi th those matt ers wh ich they feel ar e imp or tant in the departme nt and have done so. I am not going to say without exc eption but in large part have done so. So why not debate the Minis ter's Sa lary? There is no ot her change here or am I reading it wrong? You still have the opportunity of making a Moti on to clos e debate , but it would be on the Minis te r's Salary rather than on the next Item. When you close the debate on the Minis ter's Salary then you are at the next Ite m.

Then you can debate what was closed out on your Mo tion . I mean if you can' t do that then you have got no im agination . You will find it so me place in the re maining Item and therefore this ficti on of going down the numb ers se ems to me so me thing that if we continue we will continue but it won' t be because we ar e going down the Items, it will because there have not been susta ined obje ctions on the basis of relevance, so I see no great harm in this.

However, I repeat, unless you want this partic ular debate to take place on a Moti on to ame nd the Rules substantiv ely and then have a fight abou t it, I think that you had better get together with the Opp ositi on House Leader to see whether you can't find so me way of concurring on doing that which is agreeable to both sides, because I don't think that you ar e going to solve this by a Rule change. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Me mber for Mi nnedosa first. MR.

BLAKE: I think what the Memb er for Inkster is saying we can agree with, he is saying let's find a way to do this when we ar e in agree me nt with it rather than putting so me thing in that is going to cause -(In terjecti on)- No, no, so me prob lems, because as he mentioned the Minis ter changed on e rule and he is a legal person, there is going to be a mind at work imm ediatel y to find a way to get around that rule and get the debate that he wants on the fl oor available anyway.

I think what we are interested in doing by changing this particu lar Rule is pro bably speeding up the process of getting the Estimates th rough the House, and we know that that is where the minute examination of govern ment expenditures and governme nt manage ment co mes in and we ce rtainly don' t want to take anything away from that.

I think in the inter est of speeding up the proce ss of Estim ates and the debate of the Estimat es, if we were to bring in a Rule that would say that anyone wanting to spea k on the Esti mates had to sit in the Co m mittee for sixty minutes before they were allo wed to discu ss the Est imat es.

Because we have seen it happen when so me body roars in here, gets the mi ke and just tears the whole Co m mittee upside down, raises hell, and five minutes later they are gone, and accom plished nothing, but they got on the local bugle at home or whatever they want to acco mp lish · · · -(Interjecti on)- They ob viously did for their ow n results, but they haven't really - 16 -

THURSD AY , 7 FEBRU ARY, 1980. accomp lished anything in the process of examin ing the Esti mates of the House for their side or anyone else's. They have solved a proble m parochia lly at home , but if we wan t to speed up this process of getting the Es tima tes through the House, make hi m sit here for a hour and listen to all the other clap-tra p that goes on before he is allowed to speak and he is not going to be here too often.

We all know who is gui lty of it, and I have been guilty of it myself, I am not denying that, but there are so me experts at it in this House and they'll always be here: So if you could find so me way to curtail the m in some way you would have your proble m solved wit hout the Rule change that we are after now. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honoura ble Me mber for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I can concur that we should all try to im prove and husband our tim e as much as possible in order to expedite the work of the House, but what has to be borne in mind that when we went to this Rule change in respect to a two Com mittee sitting and the Minis te r's Salary being at the tail end, we also gave up a numb er of Items that we had. We had Concurrence Motions on every depart ment at that particular ti me, we gave that up. MR. JORGENSON: Oh no, we didn't give that up. MR. FOX: We ll, all right it doesn't matter.

That was the quid pro quo, that was the quid pro quo, so conseque ntly if you are going to go back to the old Rule to have the Minis ter's Salary in front, then you have to start giving the opposition some other me thods of getting their debates in for those who are not able to sit in on both co mm ittees.

That is your particular proble m that you created when yo u went to the two com m ittee syst em and you changed so me of the format that you had, that you gave up concurrences and you put the Minis ter's Salary at the end so that those who couldn't catch everything in one com mit te e could at least some in and get their particular issues done. At the presen t time if we mo ve the Minister's Salary to the front, for those who mi ss it, they have had it, and so meti mes it is not possible to sit in on both co mm ittees, because you may be a critic for one and you have to sit there all the time . MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney- General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairma n, if there is a weakness in that criticism it is this I think. I think we first of all have to recog nize, I am sure that the debate on the Minis ter's Salary is not going to be that short that someb ody is going to miss it because they are not in Room 254 and they are sitting in the Legislative Chamber.

In fact, what it probabl y does, if that is the concern, is give the m a greater opportunity, because when they come fro m the Chamber into Roo m 254 to speak on the Attorney-Gener al's Es tima tes and the Salary debate is on they can join in at any time rather than having to wait for Item 29 or Item 18 or whatever. It probably makes it easier. Whether this kind of a Rule change would shorten Estimates is quite debatable, I think. The most that I would expect that it would do is eli m inate so me of the repetition that would go on and even that .•. MR. JORGENSON: Is doubtful. MR. MERCIER: ... is doubtful. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Memb er for Inkster. - 17 -

LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MA NITO BA MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to try to again acco mmo date, see whether there is a way of accomm odating the suggested proble m. I think that it is possible, if I was sitting in the opposition and the Minister's Est imate s had been debated, and then they went down the line and they didn't block off and then we came to the last It em, he has to read the last It em, Resolved that there be granted to the Minis te r "X" amo unt of dollars, that is the last line of the sheet, can' t you debate that Ite m?

I think I could, I think I could get up and say, no, this Item should be reduced to one dollar and as long as there has to be a separate closure mo tion on the last Ite m, in other wo rds you can mo ve closure of everything down to the last figure and there has to be a separate debate on the last Item, that is in effect a Concurrence Motion. Am I saying so me thing that is wron g? MR. JORGENSON: No. MR. GREEN: And when the last Item is brought up, I get up and say, no, I want to debate the total package, that it not be-- in other words, I almost said it, not be co ncurr ed with.

Now as long as that last line requires a separate closure mo tion then I think that the House Leader of the Opposition has got his final debate on the Minis ter's Salary, which he has now. MR. FO X: You are having too many Minister's debates. MR. GREEN: Yes, but I see nothing wrong with that, you see because I believe MR. FO X: I have no obje ction to having two , that is fine, have two. MR. GREEN: I believe that you are doing that now. I believe that you are having a mi nisterial debate on the first Item and that you are having a mi nist erial debate on the last ite m, and on the second, and on the third.

But the fact is that you are having a mi nisterial debate to start wit h and it is going to be that way no matt er how you change the Rules. The House Leader of the Opposition says, well but, at least now we know that there is a last debate whic h took the place of Concurrences, right? Well, why don't we put whatev er we have to do to ensure that the last line, the total mo ney package , has to be debated sep arately.

In other wo rds, that any closur e motion has to be brought independently on that last It em, then you've got to debate to close off that Mi nist er's Ite m, in which case you have got a min isterial debate. I believe I can do it now. I don't believe I need a Rule change. I don't think you can stop me fro m debating the last figure unless you mo ve a Closure Motion.

So if you have got that then you have got the Minis te rial Item, you have got the num bers down the line which you will then have to go through, the Ministerial Item is first, it closes that, you have still got to go thr ough all those other items and then you have got a debate on the last item which is the equivalent of the Concurrence Motion except it is in Co mmi ttee and not in the House, which means that it is mo re flexible, rather than less flexible, because in the House you get up and make one speech and you can't speak again and you have got a Concurrence Motion in Co mm ittee, which is mo re flexible than a Concurrence Motion in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN:. Any further discussion? The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chair man , again I think I would put this Item in the same as the preceding one and perh aps the Opposition House Leader and myself could review this proposed amendment again prior to the sittin g of the House and we will give consideration to it at an early me eting of the Rules Comm ittee once the Session has begun. - 18-

THURSDA Y, 7 FEBRU ARY , 1980 . MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable? (Agreed) Is there any other item of busines s before the comm ittee, anything that any memb er wants to raise? We have a motion for adjournme nt. Is that agreed? (Agreed) The meetin g is adjourned. - 19-