Manitoba Committee Hansard — 25 February 1980 (Rules of the House Committee, Sitting 2, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-rh2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

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 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 Printed by W. T.Matwichyna, Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE RULES OF THE HOUSE Monday, February 25, 1980 Time: 10:00 a.m. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle-Russell) ' MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, I believe we have a quorum. We'll call the meeting to order. J The last meeting of the Rules Committee dealt with various subjects ana most of those subjects were held back, I believe, for future consideration. Now, is there any particular order in which you want to address yourself to the various prob lems that we have?

I have a couple of items that l would like to bring forward to the meeting as a result of the opening of the Leg islature. Whether you want to aeal with that now or at the end, is up to the meeting. HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne ): Mr. Chairman, why aon't you proceed with those items. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agree able? (Agr eed) On the opening day , additional lighting was put in the Chamber for extra light, to try ana impr ove the lighting. It was <lone purely as an experiment ana I was wondering if any of the members noticed it or had any objection to it.

Dia it cause any trouble to anyone with it reflecting in their eyes or anything of that nature? There has been some concern from the tel evision people that the lighting that is in the House at the present time does cast shadows on the faces of the members of the Chamber. Ana they have been concerned ana they would like to see the ligh ting in the Chamber upgraded. But we, as a Rules Committee, have stated previously that if there was any cost involved, it had to be borne by the meaia that was doing the work. I believe that is the prese nt state that was the last decision made by the Rules Committee.

The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN (Inkster): Mr. Chairman, I didn't notice that there was any change, therefore, it wouldn't bother me personally. The only thing that I would ask is whether these lights are optional, in other words can we turn them off. Because <luring the hot days - I expect we'll have hot <lays in the months of July ana August - the lights do generate more heat than is necessary. As long as we cantturn part of them off I don't see any problem myself, personally. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, maybe on the other hand, is it possible that you could turn them up to increase the heat , and we might, in that way, reauce the amount of time we spend here. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Kilaonan. MR. PETER FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have no aesire to get into the controversy about heat one way or another. I think we're supposed to be conserving ins tead of trying to create more, so I would imagine the Honourable Attorney-General was joking. I should only like to say that I aid notice them and possibly it doesn't affect all members. It depends where you are sitting.

The ones that were in the balcony, some of them were facing us ana they were very bright and I hoped that when the cameras went out after the Lieutenant-Governor, that they would turn them off, but they aian't. Now, that's only a personal experience; some others may have ot her opinions. But I ao know that some people are affectea by glare ana it aoes bother them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Per haps I should read to you a copy of a memo from Mr. Lorne Chapple, TV Eai tor of the Information Services, ana it was aaa ressea to Mark Stefanson, Supervisor of Radio ana TV Information Services.

It was aatea February 11 ana the subject was Television Ligh ting in the Legislative Chamber. -11 -

10:00 A. M., MO NDAY, 25 FE BRUARY, 1980 "With the upcoming Legislative Session close at hand concerns are again being expressed by the tel evision media over the quality of video pictures from the Chamber, which have been available during the question period of the past two sessions. The poor picture problem stems basically from the Chamber ligh ting in which the principal light so urces are located in the Chamber dome, and the projected light is downward on a close to vertical axis.

A lighting placement of this nature results in heavy facial shadows , specular reflections from foreheads, bald spots and noses, giving a grotesque unnatural pictoral characterization to members when they are on camera. Such a pictoral presentation becomes even worse when it is compared to prese ntations originating from the House of Commons in Ottawa or the Legislatures in Toronto or Regina where extensive effort has been made to pr ovide proper lighting for tel evision coverage.

At a meeting in the Chamber of February 7, attended by Walter Weiss of the Department of Government Services, Bob Hawley, Ligh ting Director of the CBC and myself, a consensus was reached that the problem should be examined closely with a view to upgrading and modifying the Chamber lighting system to make it more compatible with television requirements. It was pointed out that television lighting is basically good lighting and would likely serve the ongoing needs of the Chamber in se ssion as well as requirements for tel evisi on's purposes.

Proper selection and placement of lumen area would reduce contrast ratios and by putting light where it is more useful would tend to reduce gla re from paper and desk tops, open up the shadows across the room even in the galleries without adding any appreciable distraction, all of which would enhance the comfort and well-being of the members without interfer mg in any way with the aesthetics. I would suggest that the following steps be taken: l.

That Bob Hawley of the CBC be invited to head up a lighting demonstration, the evaluation team, along with representatives from CBC Engli sh, CKY TV, CKND TV, both Winnipeg cable stations and the Department of Government Services, to devise ana recommend an alter native to the present Chamber lighting system, which would be compatible with tel evision coverage requirements which would be of aaaed benefits to the members. 2. That the Standing Rules Committee of the House through Mr.

Speaker, be invited to participate in evaluation of any alternative lighting system demonstration, and to assess its effectiveness for the members. 3. That ultimately the Department of Govern ment Ser vices be ask ea to seek authority to expend funds and ca rry out permanent installation of an approvea system that might be recommended, where such an installation is of demonstrable value to the members, which may also enhance T.V. coverage.

In Ottawa, Toronto, Regina and Edmonton the new lighting system, while initially designed to impro ve picture quality and tel evision coverage, has been of considerable value and comfort to the members. Without some drastic change in the lighting environment of the Chamber area, I see little prospect of any Member of the Mani toba Legislature being placed in anything but a baa light during tel evision coverage of events such as the question period. I responded by pointing out to Mr.

Stefanson, and through him to Information Services, that the present restriction that we have placed, through the Rules Committee, is that there can be no expendi ture of public funds for any telev ision coverage in the Chamber. So their third point was not one that we could consider at this time. The ligh ting that was used on opening day was in there only for that one day ana that was why I am asking you now whether there is any serious objection. I pointea out to them if I heard one objection then we would not go at all, because the welfare of the members is the first consideration, rather than television.

Now that is why I raised the subject up. The Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This particular subject was raisea previously at not only the Rules Committee but when we were having our negotiatio ns with the broadcast people. And, if I recall, at that time they said they were going to get an improved camera which didn't require all that lighting.

Now we're back to the position again where they want more lighting, so I would like to know: Dia they do away with the iaea of getting a better camera or is there none available , or is it just that they want us to participate and that we shoula be the ones that are giving of ourselves in respect to what is occurring in the Chamber? - 12-

10:0 0 A.M ., MON DAY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 Now I real ize that we need the media, but I agree with you that the members are the ones that are going to have to work ana live unaer the conditions ana if they are not suitable we're not going to get our wor k aone in com fort. MR . SPEA KER: I checked into this with a couple of Members of Par liament who informed me that when the lighting in the House of Commons was changed, the temperature in there rose between five ana ten degrees. I don't know whether that was Celsius or Fahrenheit; I imagine Jt would be Fahrenhe it. The Honourable Minister without Port folio. HON.

EDWA RD McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I was a few minutes late in gettmg to the meeting today. I would have hu rried even mo re had I known that we were going to be engaged in shaaowbox ing here this morning. I really hadn't noticea any real probl em with shadows in the House; those that I aid notice were on the opposition side of the House and not on the government side, so I assumed that those shadows were from coming events which were coming be fore. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attor ney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if you can tell me if the lights that were put up on opening day were done by Govern ment Ser vices. MR. CHAIRM AN: I would hope not, I assumed the y were put up by CBC. I am not positive on that though. MR. MERCIER: Well, perhaps, Mr. Chair man, in view of the point you've raisea as to whether or not there are any objec tions, I haven't heard any objections but I would like the opportunity to ask our caucus if they have any objections to the lights that were up or whether they were even noticed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Raais son. MR . ABE KOV NATS: Mr.

Chairman, as one who is directly af fected with a bald spot and a nose that might refl ect with the additional light, I, for one, didn't notice the lights at all on opening aay and I was there for the whole day. From talking to some of the other members , I have not heard it mentioned at all, ana if it does improve the quality of the tel evision I just don't think that it can af fect us, at this time particularl y .

If we find it uncom fortabl e as we get on into the warmer months , not warm because of debate but into the warmer months July and August, if we are here that long, I would think that we would make the necessary changes at that time, but I can't see any objections at this point. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, for the moment what is being asked is an attempt to see whether there is a problem , not lights. As I have heard the letter, they want to set up some type of examination to see whether it would be a problem.

So there is no request at the moment for a change, although there was this change which some people noticed, some people didn't notice. It seems to me that there should be no problem with respect to the change. I notice they have included the media and then they saia CBC English. I don't know why they didn't just say CBC. I rea lly don't know why they didn't. The CBC, I suppose, has a full networ k.

But, nevertheless, they're just asking whe ther we would see wh ether there would be a problem and, on that basis, there is no change made, no change requested until they've had this exami nation, at wh ich point, I suppose, every body would be better informed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me. Just to clarify the record, it says CBC ENG., now I assu mea it was English; it could also be Engineering. MR. GREEN: It may be. - 13-

10:00 A. M., MO NDAY, 25 FEBRUAR Y, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: The reason I raised the issue at thiS time is that it has been tr aditional that the Speaker carry out any negotiations and he should report to the Rul es Committee what is going on, and I wanted to report to the Rules Committee at th1s time we are doing some experiments and there may be a time when we want to officially do an assessment of it. But I wanted to report to you at the present time wha t is transpiring. The second point that I wanted to raise is the ••• MR. GREEN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I assume that unless I hear to the contrary, that the experiments will continue but there will be no decision made. Is that the disposition or is there an objec tion to that dis position? MR. CHAIRMAN: At the present time we have not had a meeting as has been suggested by Mr. Weiss, Mr. Holly, the CBC and my self, we have not held that me eting as yet. They did have permissi on from me to put the extra lights in for opening day only which they have usually had in the past .

I am informed by the Legislative Counsel that ENG means Electronic News Ga thering, so we now know that it was the CBC Elect ronic News Ga thering system. · MR. KO VNATS: So it appears that there isn't a difference in lighting between English and French. Well, I think that we should have bilingual lighting. MR. CHAIRMAN: I also want to report to the Rules Committee that I might have, in error, prior to opening day I received a request fr om United Press asking for permission to put cameras in the Chamber for taking of pictures without flashbu lbs.

I refused that request but I noticed on opening day that there was a camera in the press gallery taking still pict ures. I know also that in the past we have been quite concerned about the taking of pictures in the Chamber by cameras tha t have not been authorized and I raise the issue now to see if there is some direction the Rules Committee wish to give me in respect to the still cameras in the Chamber. It's something you can think about and maybe give me the benefit of your wisdom at a future meeting.

Now if we want to proceed with the questions that were unresolved at our last Rules Committee meeting; is there any particular order in which you want to procee d with them ? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourabl e Attor ney-Ge neral. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, there were two proposals that I distributed at the last meeting. I wonder if the Clerk has copie s available for people who may not have retained them. MR. CLERK: They're made from my copies, Mr. House Leader, and there may be some ma rkings on there that I would ask the members to simply disr egard . MR. CHAIRMAN: Has everyone received a copy? May we proceed?

The Honourable Atto rney-General. MR. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Chair man, I would again just point out for the record a couple of correc tions in

Section 2 (2), in the 3rd line, "meet on the Friday of that week", that should be "meet on the Friday preceding Monday", and in

Section 3 (2), in the 2nd line, the word ''say" is really the word "day". On the 3rd page, the heading of the last paragraph should be "Committee of Supply on Thursday evening", not Wednesday evening. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to move both motions. I take it I should read them into the record unless there is someone who wishes to dispense with the reading of the three pages. MR. GREEN: Why should we have it read, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: It has then been moved by the Honourable Attor ney-General. Do we need a seconder? MR. CLERK: Not in Committee. - 1 4-

10:00 A. M., MO ND AY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any disc ussion? The Honourable Member for Ki ldonan. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have been on this committee for a number of years and I don't recall where we passed motions of this kind without at least having tried to arrive at some negotiated consensus. Now it seems to me that the government is prepared to make its first and only offer as final and proceed with the rule changes in this regard.

Our caucus has discussed this in depth and they felt that the hours that we are sitting at the present time are adequate, in fa ct, they felt that possibly the redistri bution of our workload could come better by tr ying to allocate a second sitting of the year, which would still be just one session; and there were some othe r alte rnatives that were propos ed. But if the government is prepared to proceed and since it has the majority it will succeed, then there is no point in discussing the matter. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chai rman, I had proposed these two items for discussi on at the last meeting of the committee.

There were some concerns raised with respect to Pr1vate Members ' Hour. I pointed out that that Private Members ' Hour had never been used, at least during my exp erience in the Legislat ure, during this session. There were concerns raised about committee meetings.

I believe that this arrangement, reallocation of working hours , will provide for a much more effic ient me thod of committee meetings by not requiring, for example, all member s of the House to remain in the Legislature on a Friday when a committee is meeting, or a Thursday evening when a committee is meeting , and only those members who are on the committee will be required to be here and other members can more usefully use their time on constituency work or Cabinet meetings wherever the case requires. I thi nk, Mr.

Chairman, tha t this will allow for greater utilization of a member of the Legislat ure's time, tha t it will not be a reduced work load, that in fact the number of hours will probably increase when we move into Estimates, which is more than 50 percent of the time of the Legislat ure. I would expect that committees dealing with Estimates will be meeting on Thursday evenings, depending on the progress that is made during the day. We want to be open on this, Mr. Chairman. it may be tha t it will not work out. We would like to try these rules out and see how they work out.

I think it will provide for improvements in our meetings, but if it doesn't or if some serious objections are raised by members of the House to these new rules we are pre pared to look at them with an open mind. But to date, Mr. Cha irman, I have not heard a valid object ion to the proposed changes in rules. It may be that my honourabl e friend, the Opposition House Leader, has a difficult time getting a consensus from his caucus, but I certainly have not heard any valid objection to the proposed changes in the Rules of the House and I would like to see them introduced and tried.

If it's found there is some serious problem with them we would most certainly look at that with an open mind and be prepared to modify or amend the proposal. I think it's worth a try. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WA LDING: Mr. Chair man, the Attor ney-General, in speaking to this, really went to the argument of the motion itsel f; he really didn't answer the point put foward by my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, that this committee has always, in my memory anyway, operated by consensus.

There was a suggested com promise put forward at our last meeting which both sides said that they would take back and consider. It now appears that the government is not even prepared to consider that , that the y are not going to seek for a consensus of this committee and that they're going to move to use the weight of the government majority to push this through, despite all of the objecti ons of this side.

Not only that they are going to use their majority in this Committee, they would presu mably take it into the House and use the government majo rity to do that , which I suggest is somewhat of a precedent, Mr. Chairman. It's something that we did not do when in government but if the Conservatives want to operate this way it would simply invite us to operate in the same manner when we occupy that position. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. - 15 -

10:00 A.M., MON DAY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 MR. WARREN STEEN: Mr. Chair man, the real reason behind this change is to permit, particularly our rural members, so that they can have that fifth day of the week, the Friday, for cons tituency business. The compromise that was discussed by one of the members opposite was to adjourn at 12:30 or 1:30 on Friday. Well, as you know, Mr. Chairman, members in the west ern part of the province and the north er n member s, and the members opposite do have member ship fr om northern Manitoba.

If they leave the buildings mid -Fri day aft ernoon they're not going to get home until very late Friday evening and so they're really not mu ch further ahead in the game of spending time at home in their constituencies. What we've tried to do is opt for a four-day sitting period per week and leaving tha t fifth aay for members to ao constituency work, for the government to have extra Cabinet meetings, to have Ministers to have time with departmental people. I am sure that the numbers of sitting days during this session or any other session is still going to be as many as it was last year and the year before.

We have sort of set a tradition of sitting somewhere between 90 and 11 0 days per session based on the wor kload that has been presented by the government of that time and that this is not going to reduce the number of sitting days, or sitting hours, that the session is in sessi on. What we're going to do is likely increase the length of the session by perhap:; two to four weeks because we're taking that fifth day of the week out and we're spreading the wor kload over a longer period.

But what we're trying to do is permit members, particularly rural members, to get back into their constituencies and do their constituency work , and we in our caucus have had a number of rural members that have com plained that they don't get enough time to spena at home. And then what they try to do is take a Monday off and ask other member s to cover for them so that the government has the majority at all times, ana this is not right. They should be here when the session is in session and they should be permitted certain constituency time, and this is what the goal of this change is, Mr. Chairman. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourabl e Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, what the Member for Kildonan and the Member for St. Vital have said is quite correct, that generally, and I guess we can take some pride in it, all of us, we have been able to make substan tial changes, but substanti al ones, not ones that are meaningless with regard to, for instance, the Estimates time, with regard to Closures Motions. All of these changes, although the y are substantial, they are recognized by both sides of the House as being necessary, and I think, for the most part, have proved to be good changes.

That's certainly the desi rable way and I really believe that if there is a hope of doing it that way we should still try it. I don't know that the efforts have been strong enough and I am not in a position to say who didn't try hard enough. But I have to say to the Member for St. Vital that, as a per son who could be on either side of the House and in government or in opposition, that I don't think any government can say that they're not going to change any rule except by consensus; and certainl y I would not want to make such an undertaking.

All I can do is point to history and say that when I had something to do about it it was never done. That doesn't mean that I woula never do it. I'd be the last per son to say that I am going to permit the maj orit y to be stopped by a mino rity group. I do, however, say that that's not an undesirabl e thing, particularly with regard to rules. And I'm going to plead with the government , knowing that there is some concern about this. It's a genuine concer n. It's not a concern that is merely ob stinacy; it is a concern with regard to a questi on period .

It is a concern with regard to a Private Members' Day , whi ch is availabl e, although I'm not really that much concerned about that because history has shown that it has never been used , never mina when my fri end the Attorney-Genera l was in the House, but even before that. However, it's there, ana if there is a way of keeping these things and possibly finding that we can make a change we should try it. So far as the members are concerned, that my friend the Member for Crescentwood is talking about , some of them will be absent.

There are lots of us who are absent from time to time by virtue of other activities, all of which are in keeping with being able to be a good MLA. What we know is that a person missing Friday will only be missing a couple of hours, rather than missing a whole day, or else he could leave at 12 :30 in the after noon, which gives most people a time to get back. Therefore, Mr.

Chai rman, because I haven't really heard that there has been some effort to see whether there is a resolve, I would like to move an ame ndment to the motion, ana I will read it and spell it out if you like but I pr efer to move it on a principled basis and then if it's accepted in principle then we can get the words. - 16 -

10:00 A. M., MO NDAY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 But I would move that the present sittings be changed in the following resp ects : That where we start at 2:30, we start at 2:00 o'clock. On Friday , we continue until 1:30 with the last Members' Hour being Private Members ana no additional work on Friday. I believe that those are the only changes and, Mr. Chairman, in urging some conciliation on this amendment, it would mean that eventually we would find out whe ther the Friday mor ning is really necessary. I ha ppen to think that it is, but it may not be.

If I see that the Atto rney-General or the Leader of the House is introducing work on Friaay, which is a co unterpart to the work that is being done in the House Friday morn ings - every Fr1aay mo rning in terms of impo rtant committees, or su ch - then I would perhaps be inclined to urge other changes. But in the meantime I would urge that we do accede to this because my im pression is that Friday afternoon is not a crucial time and that the work that is done on a Friday after noon someti mes is lost, merely because it is not a cru cial time.

To the Member for Crescentwood, who says that this would increase the length of the sitting, that's counter to the position taken by the House Leader, who says that you're going to put all those hours in anyway in the first four days ana therefore it shouldn't increase the life of the sitting. I mean, that's part of the argum ent that was presented on that basis, that all of those hours would be sandwiched in. We'd start working Wednesday night. We'd work at 2:00 o'clock every day. (-Interje ction--) Pardon me? Oh, yes, we'd work Wednesday? No� Wednesday; so we would lose those hours.

I got the impression that we would make up most of the hours that are lost by starting at 2:00 o'clock and skipping out all of Friaay. However, if I'm misunderstanding it doesn't matter. My proposal, Mr. Chair man, is that in the interests of tr ying to maintam procedures which are acceptable to all of the members of the House that there be a little give each way and tha t we amend the proposal by those two changes: 1. That we sit every day starting at 2:00 o'clock, where we start at 2:30; 2. That we sit Friday from 10:00 o'clock to 1:30, with the last hour being Private Members' Hour, and I so move. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attor ney-General. MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the proposal is not acceptable, because it doesn't ser ve to accomplish what we want to accom plish. To not sit as a whole Legislature on one day follows a precedent set by the vast maj orities of the Legislatures in this country, ana I say to use that day where necessary for committee meetings provides for a better utilizati on of a Member of the Legislature's time. I regret, Mr. Chairman, that we have not been able to arr ive at a consensus on this committee.

But at the same time, as I've said before, I don't see a valid objection to the proposal. I look at the precedent set by so many other Legislatures and I think there's merit in the proposals to better utilize a Member of the Legislature's time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Atto rney-General indicates that he's not prepared to move off his position. I want to indicate to him that what is occur ring under this particular proposition that he's got as a moti on, the opposition is losing ninety minut es of time.

The Honourable Member for Crescent wood has indicated that we'll be sitting the same number of hours and I would concur, so that would take us probably into July and August, if he is corr ect. And I suggested if we were going to propose this, that we should have a consid eration of looking at what ot her Legislat ures are doing, that we sit twice a year. The Attor ney-General indicates that this is what is occur ring in all the other jurisdictions; they've gone to a four -day week. But he very nicely forgets to admit that all of them are sitting twice a year and Manitoba is only sitting once a year.

So he is not proposing something whi ch is going to expedite the work of the House; all he is going to do is try to cram it more into a shorter period of time in the spring. If he had suggested that we could sit twice a year, possibly we could accept his proposal. But at the present time under the present conditions, we can't even look at it. I am prepared to say tha t we are prepared to look at the proposal of the Honourabl e Member for Inkster, but not on the exact hours that he has sugges ted.

Our members feel that the lunch hour is very important, especially when the House is sit ting, and that half-h our would make it a very very diffic ult time to get back on time, considering that caucus in both - 17-

10:00 A. M., MO NDAY, 25 FEBRU AR Y, 1980 cases usually meets prior to the House sitting anyway. So you'd be looking at having to be back at 1:00 o'clock and you couldn't very well have lunch with people who are wor king and want to meet your constituents. So, therefore, I am prepared to go the route of 2:30 every day and a half day on Friday till 1:30, which would give the opposition its normal questio n peri od, plus the option of the Pri vate Memb er's Hour. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I did not believe that the starting at 2:00 was crucial to my positio n.

I thought it was cru cial to the opposition position ana that's why I put it in. I thought the opposition did not want to lose that time, which would be lost on Friday afternoon if we didn't sit on Friday after noon. Therefore, if what my friend is saying is that we meet at 2:30 every day and Friday morning from 10:00 to 1:30, I would have no objection, excep t I would say we're losing a half hour and we're going to add it on to the rest of the year ana I'd prefer not to lose the half hour; to sit from 2:30 to 6:00, so that you get 6:00 to 8:00, wh ich is tw o hours to come back so as to not lose the hal f hour.

But really what I'm saying is I'm prepared to consider anything that is reasonable and where I think the Att orney-General, with respect, and I ask him to consider this, he is our peer in the Legisl ature, there is none of us who claim greater status by means of seniorit y or length of service but I tell the House Leader this, that in his initial start as House Leader, which he is starting now as a House Leader, if that comes in with a move to push through rules which are objected to I urge him to consider that he will lose by it, that the rules being made defini te does not affect what goes on in the House.

What goes on in the House is whe ther there is some feeling of mutu al interest in getting the work done and if the House Leader is going to introduce his position as House Leader the very first thing that he does is to institute this kind of radical rule change I believe that we will all suffer by it and that he will suffer by it. I urge that on him, I cannot claim any greater wisdom in the area, I urge it on hi m. If my friend, the Member for Kildonan, is saying that the other proposal is acceptable if we leave the 2:30 starting time, may I say that that is not cru cial, that I'm prepared to start at 2:30.

I would suggest as a means of making up the Friday after noon so we're not losing it that we sit 2:30 to 6:00 and that doesn't interfere. MR. FOX: We're pre pared to look at that too. MR. GREEN: Well, okay. MR. FOX: But the gover nment isn't pre pared to look at anything at the moment. MR. GREEN: Well, okay. Mr. Chairman, I have made a motion. I have heard an objection to the motion and because I'm trying to gain support for the motion I will leave off the first start, that we not sit starting at 2:00 but that we start at 2:30 and that the only change be that we start on Friday at 10:00 and sit till 1:30.

If this meets objection because it's the loss of a half hour, then I would be prepared to present another motion that we meet at 2:30 ending at 6:00 every day and Friday from 10:00 to 1:30. Now, I'm prepared to start with the sugges tion tha t we meet Friaay starting at 10:00 to 1:30, to withdraw the

section that says we start at 2:00 every day; and if there's an objection to that because of loss of hour s I'm going to put another motion because I want to be trying to reach consensus; and if my friends will support that then I really urge the Attor ney-General not to try to make that kind of change in one year, in his first year. It will be counterpr oducti ve in terms of what will happen in the Legislature and I'm virtually pleading with him that that is not the best way of getting things done.

That there will be a move towards what you are sug gesting it appears, unless I misread what the Member for Kildonan has said , that there will be a move towards that and perhaps it will lead to the ultimate proposal but shouldn't be so radical, you should move gradually, you should believe in gradual movement, cons er vatism. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister without Portfo lio. MR. McG ILL: Mr. Chair man, the original amendment as presented by the Member for Inkster was quite clear to me.

It became clear too that there was not any real consensus as to what changes, if any, should be adopted by the committee in respect to the opposition. - 18 -

10:00 A. 'VL, MON DAY, 2 5 FEBRUARY, 1980 One point that Mr. Gr een made was that by adopting his amendment to sw itch from 2:30 till 2:00, and then you said yo11 might be prepared to modify that on the basis of other concessions, and to sit until 1:30 on Friday, from my point of view as a rural ML A, I would find that wouldn't be very helpful to me because by the time I was able to start towards my cons tituency it would be 2:30 I pr esume ana not much of the business day would be available by the time I reached my desti nation.

But you did say that to make these changes that you suggested we would find out whether Fr iday mor ning was really necessary. I would suggest to you that if we make the changes as presented by the House Leader we have a better opportunity to find out whether Friday mor ning is really necessary by operating, in the change, without it. And then I'm encouraged by wha t the House Leader tells the committee, that if we find there are difficulties he is prepared to further amend the change� in order to adjust.

We know that there may be some things that will develop as a result of these changes, if they are indeed adopted by the committee, tha t we haven't anticipated. This is not cast in stone, this can be tried on a trial basis and if found wanting then I'm sure that the House Leader and his group would be prepared to further amend it. But, Mr. Chairman, I feel that we cannot really decide whe ther or not this is an im pro vement or a disa dvantage to the House until there has been an opportunity to put it into effect, whether it be a permanent one or a temporary one will depend upon the way in which it develops .

So, I would hope that this committee would approve the proposals, and lacking any definitive proposal from the opposition group, it would seem to me that this would be a way of det ermining whether or not these changes as pro posed would be beneficial to the House. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. KOVN ATS: Mr. Chairman, I can't see in any way at all that these proposed changes are political in any way at all. There's been inference that it might be political but the reason that I woula support the motion of the Attor ney-General is that the decision has to be made on wha t's fair.

I just looke d around the table, and all of the members are representing urb an areas. My feeling is that it's the rural areas that are the ones that are suffering because of the House sitting on Friday. My commitment is to all of the members m the House, not just the ur ban members. I think the rural member s have to be considered and my decision will be base d on the rural members being allowed to return home.

After putting in the amount of hours that they are putting in now by the end of Thursday evening, to return home to do their constituency work, which is government work, and I can't see anything wrong in reducing the House to sitting to four days as long as the amount of hours are the same, and allowing the rural members to return home on Friday. And out of fairness, I will be supporting the Attorn ey-General. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JE NK INS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm here just as a member sitting in; I'm not a member of this Committee, but I want to reiterate what my House Leader has said and my colleague, the Member for St. Vital, that our caucus has seriously considered this. We have made, I th ink, some counter proposals which, unfortuna tely, the government seems to be adamant that the y are not prepared to make any move from their original proposals tha t they have made to the Corn mi ttee. I would also like to reinforce the argument put forward by the Member for Inkster.

I think that we have always operated here as a Rules Committee, when I had been on the Committee, in consensus. We've made quite some radical changes in the rules in my years in this House. I think that some of them at the time I didn't think we re of a nat ure to improve the things that went on in the House but we found out that they did. But, those changes were not made by one group of the House enforcing its will upon the ot hers.

And I say, as the Member for Inkster said , we now have a new House Leader on the government siae of the House who seems to be deter mined tha t he's not going to make any concess ions. This seems to be .the consensus of the Conser vative caucus, the government caucus, and I can only say to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is establishing a very bad precedent for this Committee and for the Rules Committee of this House.

As the Member for Inkster said , I don't think that coming into the House and using the maj orit y that you have • • • We're not just arguing that you can't pass this in the House, because you can; you have the horses on that side of the House to do that. But I can assure you that you're not going to do it easy because you're going to have one hell of a fight in that House to change these rules. And if you're prepared to do that and accept that, well, tha t's - 19 -

10:00 A.M., MO NDAY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 fine and dandy, but you're not always going to be sit ting on that side of the House and someday, maybe in the next year or two, you're going to be si t ting on the ot her side of the House and the government will si t over there and they will say, we'll change the rules and never mind the Rules Commi t tee. I think tha t's been the success of our changes that we've made in this House, tha t we've been able to, as members, to si t down and make the changes for the be t termen t of the House as a whole and considering the opinions from all sides of the House.

Bu t if the government is not prepared to do tha t, well then, really, I don't know wha t the func tion of this Rules Commi tt ee is, because ot her wise the government of the day is going to decide what the rules of the House are going to be. And I think we should be looking at it in a far broader pers pective than wha t we have been looking at it here. Evidently this is what's been going on in the las t two or three mee tings of this Commi t tee. If the governme nt, like I say, is prepared to use it s maj ori ty to enforce it s will upon the res t of the House, then it 's on your hea ds.

And don't come crying in a couple of years time, when rules changes are made, tha t the government of the day will not consider the proposals, because you will have set the preceden t, not us. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable At torney-General. MR. MERC IER: Mr. Chairman, I'm cer tainly prepared to modify the proposal as it rela tes to work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. If members oppos it e feel that ra ther than mee t at 2:00 on each day they would prefer to mee t from 2:30 to 6:00, we would be prepared to make th at change.

Bu t as far as any changes relating to compulsory si tt ings at the Legisla ture on Friday, our caucus is not prepared to make any change. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Kild onan. MR. FOX: We have at the pres ent time, two posi tions. One is the present posi tion which my caucus pref ers but from which we're prepared to negotiate, and the governmen t has one of four days.

I indicated a li t tle earl1er tha t I am prepared to look at the al terna te proposal of the Member for Inkst er, wit h some varia tion, including the varia tion that inst ead of going at 2:00, we would go at 2:30, and I would try to convince my caucus to si t till 6:00 so that the ho urs would be the same. I think th at is the compromised posi tion. The ot her thing I would like to st at e at this time is tha t whenever we had some very crit ical changes in rules we never wro te them in as an amendmen t; we didn't propose them as a mo tion. Wha t we did was, we wen t on a trial basis.

I recall, in respec t to the two Estima tes Commi tt ees si tt ing simul taneously, we tried that ou t before we made that change firm and wro te it into the Ru les. I would suggest to the Att orney-General tha t he, too, at this pres ent time, consider the alternat e proposal, which is abou t halfwa y in betwe en his posi tion and our posi tion, and tha t we try it on a trial basis pro viding we can get agreement from our caucus. As I said, I am negotia ting.

I cannot give you anything firm at the momen t but I am prepared to go halfway, and I would hope tha t the Att orney-General would do the same thing. rm also suggesting that in lieu of the fact that we are going to a shor ter work week, we should look at the proposal of having more than one si t ting per year, like all the ot her jurisdictions do. rve heard nothing from the At tor ney-General or the governmen t benches tha t the y are prepared to look at a second si t ting in the fall, whi ch would dis tribu te our work load.

Now I know that even my own members are not very happy abou t th at proposal but they felt tha t there is enough work in the Legisla ture tha t if we're going to go to a shor tened week then we have to consider tha t proposal as well. And so therefore I suggest to the Att orney-General tha t he at least come and mee t us halfway. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable At torney-General. Pardon me, I had recognized the Honourable Member for Inks ter. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, we are only at the sor t of smoldering level of a very very str ong dis pute and as an exam ple as to how this can escalate, I can st art calling names. You know, this has been suggest ed that it 's done in fairness to rural members. In the opposi tion there are several rural members and four nor thern members. The Member for Selkir k is a rural member; the Member for St e. Rose is a rural member; the Member for St . Geo rge is a rural member; the Member for Lac du Bonnet is a rural member. These people - 20 -

10:00 A.M. , MON DAY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 are rural members and, fu rthermore, all of the rural members have been sitting on the bas is of what is now the case, and which we're seeking to see whe ther there can be any accommodation, but they all got elected on the basis of the present rules. And for them now to sug gest that they can only sit if they can go ho me on Thursday night and that that is the only fa ir way is presu mptuous in the ext re me, and there is going to be, not smolde ri ng and nice talk, there's going to be a hell of a battle over what I submit is noth ing, nothing.

You know I have to say to my fr iend, the Member for Kil donan, as to when the House si ts is not in the rules. The government calls the session, and I wouldn't want to change that. I know that the government has, from ti me to ti me, consi dered si tting in the fall, and I suppose that's one of the things that they could do, but that is not a rule change. The government calls the sess ion and I would not ask them to change a rule over that; I would ask them to cons ider whe ther there is suffic ient wo rk. Mi nd you, wi th th is government there is very l1ttle work .

I don't know why we'd have to si t in the fall; I don't know why we have to si t that often in the spr ing. I mean, they could sit; they could eit her read the kind of Throne Speech that they've read or noth ing at all, and each would be equal, pass the Est imates and go home; have enough members there to vote on those issues when they came up, and go home. They don't need a si tting in the fall and from their point of view I can understand that. I know that when we sat earlier, only in the spr ing, it was like a fall sitt ing. I mean, we went into August.

We went into September the first si tting; the fi rst si tting we started in August and went some months, which was what was thought to be a very short sess ion. So we are engaged in the beginnings of what could be, I suggest to the House Leader, an entirely unnecessary debate. My fri end, the Member for Kildonan, says, let's try it by consensus. If I was on the gover nment si de I would be a little worri ed about that because, although there was that consensus, one eunuch in a harem could stop it, to use Lloyd Axw orthy' s words.

I don't know how I'm going to descr ibe the Member for Fort Rouge or the Member for Inkster or any other member, but the Me mber for Fort Rouge has said that send ing New Democrats to Ottawa is like se nding eunuch s to a harem. Well, he should know because he was si tt ing in this House as a eunuch in a harem for all those years, and really wha t he is saying is that's wha t he was ; I mean now we have the adm issi on. I can't call the Member for Fort Rouge that, nor would I, but he calls her that. What's the opposite of a eunuch? You know, the female counterpart.

Has anybody got a word for me? -(Interj ection)- Yes. But I wouldn't want it this sess ion, because one member could say we sit tomorrow; I would prefer to do what we did when we were in the Legisl ature. We moved that th is rule change take place for this sess ion. Do you follow me? That there be a ti me period over it ; that the rule change take place for the 1980 si tting, or for the si tting that we are now in.

And knowing that the opposit ion and the government have two dif fer ent posit ions, let's proceed with som eth ing that can be acceptabl e and that wi ll not result in this, what I say is a needless, acrimo nious debate. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a mot ion on the floor. I pre fer to leave the motion as it is, with the knowledge and with notice to the committ ee that if they reject it then I wi ll change the mot ion by leav ing the 2:30 and going ti ll 6:00 o'clock, so that the half-hour is made up, because I do not th ink we should be reduc ing the Fr iday afternoon to nothing.

But I would put the mot ion as it is -- I would like it voted on -- and then I will put, if it's obv iously not accepta ble to my fr iend, the Me mber for Ki ldonan and hi s colleagues, then I wi ll put another motion, tha t the 2:00 o'clock be changed and that it go from 2:30 til l 6:00. I suggest that if we have to take those mot ions and know where the si des stand, then we'll take them from there. But I would like to try to prevail upon the House Leader that this is not some th ing which is unfa ir to any member. It's not unfa ir to a rural member and it's not unfa ir to an urban member.

Your rural members , my fr iend the Member for Brandon East, have been obviously able to serve hi s constitue ncy, from at least the ir point of view, although with reduc ing marg ins; at least from their poi nt of view he's been able to • . . maybe that's why he wants that Fr iday off, I don't know. MR. McG ILL: I haven't talked to Len Evans about it. MR. GREEN: Well, the fact is that ... MR. McGIL L: You're speaking of Brandon East ... - 21 -

10:00 A.M., MO NDAY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 MR. GREEN: I'm talking about Branaon West. I've alwa ys maae that mistake. I've always wanted that seat. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the members ana the rural member s have been able to serv e their constituencies. They now can leave, I ass ure you •.• I can't ass ure you definitely, I can't give you a guara ntee, but you will be able to leave at 12 :30, or even an hour before.

But you won't have to wait until 1:30 because nobody's going to be here until 1:30, that's my pr ediction, unless some body merely wants to show that I predict wrong ana asks for a Priv ate Members' Hour between 12 :30 and 1:30 on Friday. That's the only thing that will upse t it. But I am suggesting that we proceed with this motion. If it goes down I'm going to put another motion. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Attor ney-General. MR. MERCIER: Well, just two points, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for lnkster is cor rect when he says, although there are members on both siaes of the House who would like to divide the workload between the spring ana fall, that is something that the government itself has to consider and decide when ana if they want to move in that direction and call the Legislat ure in the fall. On the question of this whole proposal, it is being put forward on a trial basis, so let there be a clear understanding that that is the basis upon which we are proposing it.

And we suggest we try it ana see how it works out ana then reconsider the matter, either auring the sess ion itself or after the session is com pleted. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Member for Crescentwood. MR. STEEN: Mr. Chairman, the Atto rney-General has basically said what I was going to say. I was going to say that the government members want the Ho use to sit on four Oays so that they can have an ex tra aay for constituency work.

The Atto rney-General has inaicatea that we're flexible; we can change the hour s during those four aays, Monday to Thursday, so that the numbers of hours that we're currently sitting aren't reduced . We'll change the sitting times, and so on, but we dearly want Frioay as a constituency aay. There were member s in our own group that wanted Mondays, but we've selected Friday, ana that is our posi tion. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Kilaonan. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to say that I appr eciate what the Honourabl e Member for Inkster has said, although having cau cused this position I find that I cannot support his motion with the 2:00 o'clock sitting and I am prep ared to have a look at the half-hour at 6:00 o'clock. On that basis, I would suggest to the Attor ney-General that we are trying to com promise. I wish he would be of the same mind ana ao the same for us.

After all, this House lives by agreement ana by the member s wanting to adhere to the ru les, cus toms and traditi ons of the parliamentary syst em , but if something is rammed aown somebody's throat they're not going to be happy ana they're not going to live with it ana I agree with the Member for Inkster that there are a number of ways that wha t he's trying to achieve will be thw arted because he forces a rule down our throats. I'd just leave it at that, let him consider it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. WA LDING: Mr.

Chairman, the point that was made some time ago as to why the gover nment is pushing this to a vote contrary to the usu al operating procedure of the committee really hasn't been addressed. The only answer we got from the At torney-G eneral was, "Well, he hasn't heard a good reason not to change it." Well, the good reason is pretty obvious when you look at the proposal and government wants to reduce the House's work week by 1 1/ 2 hours or 90 minutes and of that 90 minu tes it's 100 minutes that they're asking the opposition to give up.

They're asking us to give up one Private Member's Hour ana one question perio d. It's as simple as that. We don't want to give up those two times ana we will resist it even to a vote at this committee ana in the House. MR. CHAIRM AN: Is there any further discuss ion? Can I ask the Honourable Member for Inkster then to, because we don't have it typed out, to again give us his amenament. - 22 -

10:00 A.M., MON DAY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I move that in principle , subject to proper wording, that the Rules be changed so that the House sit st arting at 2:00 Mondays to Thursdays and on Friday, fr om 10:00 to 1:30 with the last hour being Private Member's Hour. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ar e you ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion please signify. All those opposed please signify. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 1. Nays, 6. MR. CHAIRMA N: I declare the amendment lost. The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to move an amendment to the existing proposal, again that the rules be changed so that the House sit from 2:30 to 6:00, Mondays to Thursdays, and Friday from 10:00 to 1:30 with the last hours being Private Member's Hour. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ar e you ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion please signify. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 3. Nays, 4. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment lost. Ar e you ready then for the motion of the Honourable Attorney -General? Ar e you ready for the questwn? All those m favour of the motion, please signify. All those opposed. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 4. Nays, 3. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion car ried. MR. MERCI ER: Mr. Chairman, did you include in that motion both the amendments to Rule 65? Do you wish that to be a separ ate motion? MR. GREEN: No, that was a separate one. MR. MERCIER: Well I'd also make that motion, Mr. Chairman, I take it the committee doesn't require reading of the full motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ar e you all familiar with the motion that's on the third page, sub rule 65(8.1 ). Ar e you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Ki ldonan. MR. FOX: Mr. Chairman, again --{Inter jection)--. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Is this the correct motion that • . • Perhaps I shou ld read it then. "T hat Rule 65 be amended by aading thereto, immediately after sub rule 8 thereof the following sub rule: Committee of Supply on Thursday evening, 65(8.1 ). Where the Committee of Supply or a

section thereof is sitting at half past five o'clock on a Thursday, unless the committee or the

section passes a motion to adjourn for the day, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman shall leave the Chair until 8:00 in the evening when the comm1 ttee or the sectwn shall reconvene and continue its wor k, and sub rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 apply." MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, that was all part of the first motwn, the three pages of amendments. The second motion is a two page and is bemg distribu ted with respect to 65(15) and 65(16). MR. CHAIRMAN: Then I am in error? MR. MERCIER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, then I will let the Attor ney-General read the motion that he is now proposing. - 23-

10:00 A.M. , MON DAY, 25 FEB RUA RY, 1980 MR . MERCIE R: If it's required by members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, it has been dist ributed. It starts at sub rule 65(15) and 65(16) of the rules of the House be struck out and the following sub rule substituted there fore, Vo te on Minister's Salary. 65(15) and 65(16) is really a changing of -- (16) used to be ahead of (15). MR . CHAIRMAN: Oh, this is the one. MR . ME RCIE R: Yes.

The real change on the second page, 65(16.1) where the Estimates of a department of government include an item for the Minister's Salary that item shall be debated, co nsidered and dealt with firs t and until a vote has been held on that item no other item in the Estimates of the department shall be debated, considered, dealt with or voted on, the ef fect of which in the Estimates is to debate the Minister's Salary firs t and then move on to all other items. We disc ussed that at some length at the last meeting of this committee. MR . CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR . FOX: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, we have no objection to leaving the clos ure motion in but what we do object to is putt ing the Minister's Salary firs t and going throu g h it. We felt that it had been a fairly good practice of leaving the Minister's Salary to the end because of the two committees meet ing there were members who could not participate. I have su ggested to the At torney- General privately, and I'll do it at this committee, that we have a further look at this particular rule to see whether we can't find a compro mise position.

Our su ggestion is that the fact that much of the debate that was supposed to take place under the Minister's Salary also took place under the Deputy Minister's Salary. Now I'm prepared to have a look at mo ving that entire

section down to the bottom, so that ther e would be no opportunity except going into the detailed Estimates right at the beginning with one other proviso, that the opening statement of the Ministers be carri ed out and that the opposition have the opportunity of at least one member, the critic, having a 10 or 15 minute just general overview of it and then going into the detailed Estimates and leaving the Minister's Salary and the Deputy Minister's Salary and Administra tion for the bottom end so that any loose endS could be picke d up. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attor ney-General. MR . ME RCIE R: Mr.

Chairman, the di f ficulty , as we see it , with that proposal is if you have an opening statement by the Minister and a response by the critic, the Minister will want to respond to the critic ; the critic will want to respond again to the Minister; and it would go on and on and on. So we're proposin g this change in the rules to accommodate what the fo rmer Go vernment House Leader sai d at the previous meeting is, in ef fect , what has been happening and what the opposition apparently want to do. MR . CHAI RMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster . MR . GR EEN: Mr.

Chair man, I would like to go on record as being opposed to singling out any person who can respond to ministerial remarks. Each member of the Legisla tu re ••• And I guess this shows some of the validity of having an independent member of the Legislature on the Rules Committee, as I cert ainly would not want to - and I wouldn't have wanted to do it in gover nment - su ggest that there is an opposition per son who can respond but other op posi tion members cannot respond.

As far as the rule change is concerned, I indi ea ted last time that I could see no real objection in principle because I see a Ministerial debate on the last item , which is subject to debate - tha t is the whole item - which let's you debate the Ministerial Sal ary again. And I do know that members of the Le gislature have been anxious to debate the Ministerial Salary, or the broad de partment on the first item, and if tha t's the case why are we maintainin g fiction and debates on relevance on the first question? MOT ION pre sented and car rie d. - 2 4-

10:00 A. M., MON DAY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: Has any member any further item to raise? Before I entertain a motion for ad journment, there was an item that was referr ed to the Le gal Counsel at our last meeting, dealing with a proposed amendment to the Rul es of the House, to provide for the matter of some means of raising a grievance. We had some debate at that time and the Legislative Counsel has proposed an amendment to the rules , and I would ask him to read it. MR.

RAY TALLIN: You may recall that there was reference to the grieva nce proce dure in Beauches ne's Fourth Edi tion as opposed to the omission of any grievance procedure in the Fifth Edition. And the prob lem is that the wording of the present Sub-r ule 1( 2) of the Ru les of the House refers to the usages and cus toms of the House of Commons ot' Canada in force at the time that the probl em arises. There is not even any reference in our Su b-rule 1( 2) to the Practices and Precedents of the As sembl y here in Manitoba, which may, from time to time, be diff erent from those which are in use in the House of Commons.

So what I have done is drafted a change in this rule which would allow the Precedents and Practices of the House here in Manitoba to be use d as well as the Usages and Customs of the House of Commons in Canada, as in force on Ju ly 12 , 1955, which I believe is the date of the first publication of the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne, and it would read as follows: In all cases for which provisi on is not made in the rules, or by sessional or other orders , the Precedents and Practices of the House shall be follo wed .

And in cases for which provision is not made in the rules and for which there is no precedent or practice of the House, the Usages and Customs of the House of Commons of Canada as in force on July 12 , 1955, shall be followed so far as they are applicable to the Assembly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussi on? The Honourable Member for Kildo nan. MR . FOX: Mr . Chairman, when you indicate the Usage and Customs, that doesn't refer to Beauch esne's though, does it? It just refers to the House of Commons that was operating at that time. MR .

TALLIN: Well, Bea uchesne's pub lication indicated, I think , what the usages and practices were at that time . MR . FOX: Do we, by any chance, eliminate the Fifth Edit ion then, in any way? MR. TALLIN: Yes. It wouldn't be relevant except insofar as it am plifie d rules wh ich were also Rules of the House in 1955, Rules of the House of Common s. It's very difficult to fig ure out whi ch Beauchesne you're going to look at . MR. FOX: That's my question I was going to come to next . In that case, where does Mr. Speaker stand in respect to usage of the Fif th Edition , if he has now referred to the Four th?

Maybe it's just for this particular instance . Pos sibly we should wr ite in "in respect to grievances only" and that would clarify it, because that's wha t raised our question was the grievance procedure. If we apply it to all other rules, then we have a problem . MR . CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . GREEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the problem is a rever se. There are many many more changes and I wasn't wor ried at all about the grievance proce dure.

I believe that there is a practice in our House which has not been ame nded and Beauch esne is not the Rules of the House; Bea uchesne is a co rn mentary, and the Rules of the House stand . What concer ned me only was that the Legisl ative Counsel said that the Rul es of the House of Commons apply. Well, the House of Commons has numerous rules about going out of · · · They don't have Committee of the Whole House. They go out to various committees.

They have all kinds of other changes, and I really was concerned that we get out of the Rules of the House of Commons but they've been applied insofar as they are applicab le. But there are plenty of precedents or practices in the House which I can certainly refer to, which are not confirmed in Beauchesn e. Beauchesne is a commentary; Beauchesne is not the rules. - 25 -

10:00 A. M., MO NDAY, 25 FEBRUAR Y, 1980 MR. TALLIN: That 's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attor ney-General. MR. MERC IER: We ll, Mr. Chairman, I wo uld think the new rule - and I've just seen the new rule - by stating that the Precedents and Practices of this House shall be followed, is an imp rovement over the existing rule and really , by the refer ence to Bea uchesne's Fo urth Edition, we're bringing in the grievance proced ure which everyone wants to follow. Bu t probably the most imp ortant change in the rule is to allow for the Precedents and Practices of this House. made. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Is there agreement then, to have this changed ? MR. MERC IER: There's no motion yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would someone make a motion ? MR. TALLIN: Can we do it by conse ns us? MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we do it by conse nsus? MR. MERC IER: I think so. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister wit hou t Portfoli o. MR. Mc GILL: Well, if a motion is required, I wou ld so move. MR. CHAIRMAN: Then I su ggest everyone is in agreement. This change will then be Is there any fu rther business? The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I move that this Ru les Committee not report back to the Legislative Assembl y , beca use, Mr. Chairman, I bel ieve that the changes that have been made have not im proved the position vis-a- vis the House, in particular the fir st change relating to the hours. I find it incredib le, Mr. Chairman, tha t on an issu e of this kind, tha t the government is anxious to create a confr ontation, and that kind of conf rontation is totally unnecessary.

There were some allowances, it woula appear, that the Committee as a Whole -a ll of the members of the House - was prepared to go some distance in trying to arrive at a better sit uation and that proced ure, which has ser ved us well in the past, is being unnecessarily and arbitrarily reversed by the maj orit y of the members of the Ru les Corn mi tt ee. And on that basis, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do not report these changes. MO TION presented and lost. MR. GREEN: The Committee has to report. MR. CHAIRM AN: Is there any fu rther business ? The Honourabl e Member for St. Vital. MR.

WALD IN G: More of a question, Mr. Chairman. I under stand some work was being done in the Chamber wi th the recording ana amplif ication equipment. I'd like to ask if that work has now been completed. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I don't believe ••• There are changes being made to the sound system, that have not as yet been in place. That is the understanding that I have at the present time. - 26 -

10: 00 A.M . , MON DAY, 25 FEBRUARY, 1980 MR. W ALDING: I knew there was so me difficulty in hearing me mbers speaking at the opening. I' m wondering if ear pieces are still available or will be available to me mbers, and is it by request or by so me other method? MR. CHAIRMAN: If any me mber is havmg any proble m at all, please let me know and we'll make su re that there are ear pieces available for th em. MR. WA LDING: Would you supply one for me, please? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Any further business? Hearing none, I im agine I have the right to adjourn the meeti ng. - 2 7 -

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-rh2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf rh2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	62db1c6bbf48025a681ff7b462ecab25904b4225

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