Manitoba Hansard — 24 March 1972 (Sitting 18, 29th Legislature, 4th Session)

29-4-18

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox Vol. XIX No. 18 10:00 a.m., Friday, March 24th, 1972. Fourth Session, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans- Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

Electoral Division Name Political Address Affiliation ARTHUR J. Douglas Watt P.C. Reston, Manitoba ASSINIBOIA Steve Patr i ck Lib. 10 Red Robin Place, Winnipeg 12 BIRTLE- RUSSELL Harry E. Graham P.C. Binscarth, Manitoba BRANDON EAST Hon. Leonard S. Evans N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 BRANDON WEST Edward McGill P.C. 2228 Princess Ave., Brandon, Man. BURROWS Hon. Ben Hanuschak N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 CHARLESWOOD Arthur Moug P.C. 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg 20 CHURCHILL Gordon Wilbert Beard In d. 148 Riverside Drive, Thompson, Man.

CRESCENTWOOD Cy Gonick N.D.P. 1 - 174 Nassau Street, Winnipeg 13 DAUPHIN Hon. Peter B urtniak N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 ELMWOOD . Hon. Russell J. Doern N.D.P. Legislative_Bidg., Winnipeg 1 EMERSON Gabriel G irard P.C. 25 Lomond Blvd., St. Boniface 6 FLIN FLON Thomas Barrow N.D.P. Cranberry Portage, Manitoba FORT GARRY L. R. (Bud) Sherman P.C. 86 Niagara St., Winnipeg 9 FORT ROUGE Mrs. lnez Trueman P.C. 179 Oxford St., Winnipeg 9 GtMLI John C. Gottfried N.D.P. 44- 3rd Ave ., Gimli Man. GLADSTONE James Robert Ferguson P.C. Gladstone, Manitoba INKSTER Hon. Sidney Green, Q.C. N.D.P.

Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 KILDONAN Hon. Peter Fox N.D.P. 244 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 LAC DU BONNET Hon. Sam Uskiw N.D.P .• Legi�lative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 LAKESIDE HarryJ. Enns P.C. Woodlands, Manitoba LA VERENDRYE Leonard A. Barkman Lib. Box 130, Steinbach, Man. LOGAN William Jenkins N.D.P. 1294 Erin St., Winnipeg 3 MINNEDOSA David Blake P.C. Minnedosa, Manitoba MORRIS Warner H. Jorgenson P.C. Box 185, Morris, Man. OSBORNE lan Turnbull N.D.P. 284 Wildwood Park, Winnipeg 19 PEMBINA George Henderson P.C.

Manitou, Manitoba POINT DOUGLA S Donald Malinowski N.D.P. 361 Burrows Ave., Winnipeg 4 PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE Gordon E. Johnston Lib. Room 248, Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 RADISSON Harry Shafransky N.D.P. 4 Maplehurst Rd., St. Boniface 6 RH IN ELAND Jacob M. Froese Soc. Cr. Box 40, Winkler, Manitoba RI EL Donald W. Craik P.C. 2 River Lane, Winnipeg 8 RIVER HEIGHTS Sidney Spivak, Q.C. P.C. 250 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 ROBLIN J. Wally McKenzie P.C. lnglis, Manitoba ROCK LAKE Henry J. E inarson P.C. Glenboro, Manitoba ROSSMERE Hon. Ed. Schreyer N.D.P.

Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 RUPERTSLAND Jean Allard N.D.P. 602 - 245 Provencher Ave., St.Boniface 6 ST. BONIFACE Hon. Laurent L. Desjardins N.D.P. 357 Des Meurons St., St. Boniface 6 ST. GEORGE William Uruski N.D.P. Box 580, Arborg, Manitoba ST. JAMES Hon. A.H. Mackling, Q.C. N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 ST. JOHNS Hon. Saul Cherniack, Q.C. N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 ST. MATTHEWS Wally Johannson N.D.P. 23- 500 Burnell St., Winnipeg 10 ST. VITAL D. J. Walding N.D.P. 31 Lochinvar Ave., St. Boniface 6 STE. ROSE A.R . (Pete) Adam N.D.P. Ste. Rose du Lac, Manitoba SELKIRK Hon. Howard Pawley N.D.P.

Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 SEVEN OAKS Hon. Saul A. Miller N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 SOURIS-KILLARNEY Earl McKellar r.c. Nesbitt, Manitoba SPRINGFIELD Hon. Rene E. Toupin N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 STURGEON CREEK Frank Johnston P.C. 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg 12 SWAN RIVER James H. B ilton P.C. Swan River, Manitoba THE PAS Ran McBryde N.D.P. 228 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 THOMPSON Joseph P. Borowski N.D.P. La Salle, Manitoba TRANSCONA Hon. Russell Paulley N.D.P. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 VIR DEN Morris McGregor P.C. Kenton, Manitoba WELLINGTON Philip M.

Petursson N.D.P. 681 Banning St., Winnipeg 10 WINNIPEG CENTRE J. R. (Bud) Boyce N.D.P. 777 Winnipeg Ave., Winnipeg 3 WOLSELEY

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 10:00 o'clock, Friday, March 24, 1972 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 365 MR . SPEAKER: Before we proceed> I should like to direct the attention of the honour able members to the gallery where we have 25 students of Grade 6 standing of the James K. Mcissac School. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Dumas. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Osborne. We also have 16 students of Grade 12 standing of the Steinbach College, This school is located in the constituency of the Honour able Member for La Verendrye.

On behalf of all the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly, I welcome you here today. Presenting Petitions; Reading and REceiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports. The Honourable Minister of Labour. TABLING OF REPORTS HON . RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee for the calen dar year 1971. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. BEN HANUSCHAK (Minister of Education)(Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table the Annual Report of the Department of Youth and Education for the school year ending June 30th, 1971, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Public Works. HON. RUSS ELL DOERN (A cting Minister of Public Works) (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year 1970- '71. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: I am informed that we have further guests in the gallery. The Hon ourable Minister of Environment at the federal level, the Honourable Jack Davis is in our gallery.

The Honourable Minister of Resources of Saskatchewan, Mr. Cramer is our guest as well. On behalf of all the honourable members I would like to welcome you here today. Notices of motion; Introduction of bills; Oral questions; The Honourable Member for Riel. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR . DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, several days ago I directed a question to the First Minister as to whether he could advise whether consultants had been assigned to the Ap achawana Dam examination he undertook to determine; if there had been, and who they were. Couln he advise the House? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister.

HON. EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier)(Ro ssmere): Mr. Speaker, as I believe I in dicated to the honourable member the other day, there are still a number of alternative diver sion routes that are being studied and which including field studies and field samples being taken, and that is about all I can report at this· time, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR . L, R. (BUD) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I apparently incorrectly addressen a question to the Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recrea tion which I would like now to redirect to the Attorney-General.

I would like to ask the Attorney General, Sir, whether the Hewak Commission of Enquiry into the February 21st Winnipeg Boxing Card will have the power to force principles and witnesses from outside Manitoba to come back to Manitoba to testify. · MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HO N. A. H. MACKLING, Q. C, (Attorney-General)(St. James): Mr. Speaker, in answer to that, although there is a great deal of co-operation between jurisdictions, and be tween courts in various jurisdictions, there is very little formal provision for the compelling

366 March 24, 1972 (MR. MACKLING cont'd) .. " • ,of witnesses from one jurisdiction to another. But our com mon law systems -- as a matter of fact, legal systems throughout the world co-operate very effectively in arranging for the production of witnesses.

It's characteristic I think of the ability of international law, or at least many areas of international law, to overcome formal difficulties and I'm satisfied that the commissioner certainly will be able to ensure the attend ance of witnesses through the co-operation of courts elsewhere if that is necessary. 1\ffi" SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina, MR " GEORGE HENDERSON (Pembina): Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Is he aware that the same brand of fertilizer is coming from across the States into Canada at as much as $15. 00 a ton less than is being sold in Canada by Canadian manufac turers. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture, HON. SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture) (Lac du Bonnet): That is out of order because awareness is not a point for the House to consider. MR " SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. 1\ffi. J.

WALLY McKEN ZIE (Roblin): I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I wonder can the Minister advise the House when the Committee of the Adviso ry Council of Fitness and Recreation would be tabled, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. HON" PETER BURTNIAK (Minister of Highways)(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, was the question the names of the - the report is public if my honourable friend wants a copy I'm sure that I can get a copy for him, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR . McKENZIE: A second question, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder would the Minister also table the Walker Report dealing with the expropriation of property in the Heel a Island. MR" SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. MR. BURTNIAK: Mr. Speaker, this was a report that came to my department some time ago and I'd have to find out if this report is available and if so I'll table it, MR" SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina" MR" HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I've a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture, Now that he has been made aware of this, does he intend to do anything about it?

MR " SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture, MR . USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite sure what the honourable member is talking about, MR " SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur, MR. J" DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Mr" Speaker, through you, Sir, subject to your sanction I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Is he not aware of the fertilizer situation ••. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I do believe the Honourable Minister indicated and it was remiss on my part not to indicate awareness is not an area that we have to discuss in this House. The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR.

J, R, (BUD) BOYCE (Winnipeg Centre): M:r" Speaker, I wonder if the First Minister could inform the House whether the minutes of the Hydro or Telephone, Manitoba Telephone System during the public domain, are these minutes available to anyone that asks for them" MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister, MR" SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, the minutes of the Crown-owned utilities are I believe available to the public in the sense that they are available and admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act and I believe that members of this Assembly, any member of this Assembly if he were to specify at least to the extent of identifying the general subject matter of the minutes that they would be available from any Crown utility, under terms of the Evidence Act, I believe it 's

Section 39 of the Evidence Act which requires a payment of 10 cents per so and so many words, MR" SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR, STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Mr" Speaker, before the Orders of the Day I wish place my question to the Honourable Minister of Labour. Is the Honourable Minister giving any consideration to bringing in legislation for a 40-hour work week during this sesson, MR , SPEAKER: Order please. I believe the question is anticipatory, It was men tioned in the Throne Speech the labour code would be dealt with, consequently the question falls

March 24, 1972 367 (MR. SPEAKER cont'd) , , . , • into that realm, The Honourable Member for Ass inibo ia. 1\lR, PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary, if I can rephrase my question. I wasn't aware that the labour code, you know, was going to bring in the 40-bour week. But my question is - there are some 40 to 50 companies in Canada now operating on a three and four day work week, Has the minister or his department any studies or reports how effective thes e shorter three or four day work weeks are working out. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour, :MR.

PAULLEY: All I can really say to my honourable friend, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister of Labour and the Department of Labour are constantly making asse ssme nt of working conditions in all jurisdictions not only within Canada but without as well, and that was one of the matters that we have had some considerable study made into, 1\lR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ass iniboia, MR. PATRICK: A supplementary. But you haven't got any reports of how effective it's working out. 1\lR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Yes we have reports to the extent, Mr.

Speaker, that contained with in our library, there are references to the subj ect matter and if my honourable friend would like to have the services of our Res earch Department available to him, or the books in the library, he would be quite welcome at his time to come and get them. 1\lR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assinibo ia, MR, PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. These reports in the library, are they as a result of the studies that were done by the Minister of Labour and his department? MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I didn't say there were any precise studies made by the Minister and the Department but we are constantly studying reports which are of course also available to my honourable friend if he'd like to take the time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland, MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the government to issue or float a bond issue the same as our parity bonds during the course of this year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON.

SAUL CH ERNIACK, Q, C, (Minister of Finance) (St, Johns) : Mr. Speaker, the question of the issue of bonds is always under consideration and is under active consideration now. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, MINISTERIAL STATEMENT HON. LEONARD S, EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce) (Brandon East) : Mr. Speaker, I have a brief report from the Flood Forecasting Committee which held its second meeting of the year yest erday, March 23rd to review the situation conce rning flood prospects on the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers. The Committee reports, Mr.

Speaker, that because of favourable weather conditions the situation has improved since its first meeting, A stage at Winnipeg of below the first flood stage of 18 feet is predicted; on the Red River between Emerson and St. Norbert, the stage is slightly below bankful . . • will result with a continuation of the favourable weather conditions, Normal precipitation during the next two weeks, which is a critical period, will resu lt in bankful stages. Above normal precipitation will result in some flooding along this reach of the river, that is if above normal precipitation does take place.

On the Assiniboine River although above normal runoff is indicated above bankful stages are not expected to be reached unless advers e weather conditions are experienced over the water shed, The Shellmouth Res ervoir will be operated so as to as far as possible maintain spring peak flows at below bankful stages along the river do'\\n stream.

The Portage Divers ion will be operated to reduce the poss ibility of local flooding from ice jams between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg, The situation on both rivers will be under constant su rveillance as us ual by the Com mittee throughout the breakup period and should unus ual conditions develop caus ing a marked change in the forecast, further reports will be issued, I might add, Mr.

Speaker, that the in formation that I've submitted and the obs ervations of the Committee are based upon various results of surveys of soil moisture, records of winter flows in the various rivers as recorded by the Water Survey of Canada, the meteorlogical information and from other information and

368 March 24, 1972 (MR. EVANS cont'd) ••••• emanating from United States agencies. I do have copies of this statement available for both members of the House and for the Press gallery. Thank you. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD - Cont'd, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. WATT: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister and thank him for his statement. I wonder if he could indicate to the House what the situation is on the Souris River at the moment. ,MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR, EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, I did give a report on the Souris River a couple of days ago and I have had no further communication from the department and I would take it that as I indicated at that time, no news in so many words is good news, There's been- in a sense there's been no change, there's been no worsening of the situation. But if there is a substantial change from the last report I will report to the House but there's been no change reported to me, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR . McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister.

I wonder would he get me the figures for the Valley River as well. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR . EVANS: The honourable member asked for information on the Valley River. Yes, well Pll take the question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Commerce in connection with the statement he just made. Because of the high water levels on the Souris does he expect any flooding of the Pembina where it enters into the United States and that por tion which is in the United States ? MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce, MR . EVANS: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House realize, I'm not an expert on flood control predictions but I'll take that question as notice and if there is any vital information that I can obtain for the honourable member I'll certainly pass it on. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GABRIEL GIRARD (Emerson): Yes I would like to ask the Honourable Minister if it is possible to send copies of these statements to the municipal councils involved in the areas that might be flooding. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is possible to do so but I believe that officials of the Department of Mines and Resources and Environmental Management in the Water Control Branch are - the local engineers and the area engineers are usually in contact with municipal officials, particularly if there is some pending flood situation. Normally the general reports that we give here of course are usually reported by our friends of the press.

But if you know of any particular municipality that wants more detailed information that is not now obtaining it, if you'd let me know I would certainly try to accommodate them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR . GIRARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was informing, especially with regard to the Emerson Town Council and the Franklin Municipality. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I'll look into this and see what communication there is between the department and the municipality and will endeavour to ensure that as much informa tion as we have that can be of use to the municipality is forthcoming. MR .

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Transportation. Some time ago he said that there was an investigation into Headingley to see if the long distance toll charges would be removed. My question is: has the survey or the investigation been completed to see if the long distance toll charges can be removed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. MR . BURTNIAK: Mr.

Speaker, the survey that was taken all across the Province of Manitoba is not only applying to Headingley as such, it was all across the Province of Manitoba and the survey is now completed but the final report is not as yet ready. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland.

March 24, 1972 369 MR . FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Public Works, if he's listening, I was kind enough to relinquish my office during the summer months, Can he tell me when I will be receiving my office back? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Public Works, MR . DOERN: I can look into. the matter for the honourable member but I don't believe that he has a right to an office unless he is, with his colleagues, a complete party, MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day; Orders of the Day. The Honourable Minister of Labour, MR. PAULLEY: I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if you would entertain a motion to go into Committee of the Whole House, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister for Inkster. MR . SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Inkster): Mr, Speaker, I move, seconded by the honour able member for Wellington, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider the following: The Report of the Special Committee of the Legislature appointed to examine and review the application, effect an en forcement of the amendments to the rules of Standing Orders of the Assembly adopted on Thursday, June 10, 1971. MR .

SPEAKER presented the motion. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FROESE: Without exhausting my right to speak - raising a point of order, wasn't aware that this would be discussed this morning. Could we not have this delayed, - (Interjection)-- I wasn't aware of this and I haven't got my notes with me, I have nothing with me, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR . PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that my honourable friend is aware that he was given notice by the Orders of the Day, dated for today, and also as indicated by my Premier this was delayed yesterday in order to give members an opportunity to take a look at the report. which was tabled a few days ago. So my honourable friend should be aware and ready, and I trust that he will be making as usual his valuable contributions to this debate. MR . SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole with the Honourable Mr, Jenkins in the Chair.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster, MR , GREEN: Mr. Chairman, we're just waiting for the Honourable Member from Morris to resume his seat because I notice he will be steering this matter for his group. What I would propose if it meets with the acceptance of honourable members is that we take the report and then proceed to deal with it paragraph by paragraph. Certain para graphs are merely informatory, others involve recommendations, and perhaps we could pro ceed clause by clause in that fashion if it's agreeable to honourable members.

Perhaps some of the honourable .members would like to comment on the procedure that I have suggested before we move in that direction. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR . WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr. Chairman, there is just one comment I would like to make. I have no objection to the course of action that is proposed by the Member for Inkster with perhaps one exception, I think opportunity should be provided for some general comments on the whole question of rules prior to going into the decision to deal with them sec tion by section.

If that is agreeable to the government why then I have no objections to proceed ing as the member has suggested. MR . CHAIRMAN: Agreed that the general comments on the rule changes before we go to clause by • , • MR . GREEN: That's perfectly agreeable to our side of the House, Mr. Chairman. I, in fact, will reserve my comments.

I am hoping that the rule changes aregenerally concurred with, although I know there is no guarantee. in that respect and that even deciSions made by a group at the committee could be reversed at this time, but I would prefer to reserve my com ments to find out whether there are any matters. of issue, therefore I would invite the Member from Morris to proceed first, it that's agreeable. I would have nothing to say except that we are generally concurring with the suggested changes.

370 March 24, 1972 MR . CHAIRl\LAN: The Honourable Member for Mor ris. MR . JORGENSON: In that case, Mr.

Chairman, I will be happy to proceed in a general way, making comments on the report of the committee, but before I deal with the report that is before us, I should like to review the changes that have been made in the rules a year or so ago, and how they have affected the debates in this House, and perhaps raise a few points that are contained in the report that was submitted to this House on Friday, the 20th of March, 19700 There are a number of features of those recommendations that have not been dealt with, and I should like to ask the governme nt some questions regarding those recommendations that were made at that time.

First of all, Sir, the purpose of the Rules Committee attempting to bring about some changes in our rules was to enable the House to deal more expeditiously with the business that it has before us. I don't think that it should be forgotten that the prime purpose, in fact the only purpose, of this Legislature meeting is to examine the spending habits of the government, their taxation program and their legislative program. And any impediment that is placed in the way of the proper examination of the government is restricting the purpose for which this Legislature meets in the first place.

We believe, those of us who acted on the Rules Committee, believe that we attempted to meet that criteria, and as an examination of the effect of the rule changes that were made during the last session, I think we find at least, other members can speak for themselves but I think that I can speak for most members of the Official Opposition, we found that most of the changes are working to the advantage of members, and the biggest change that was made during the last committee report was the matter in which we were dealing with Private Members' Resolution and not private members' business.

In my view, it has ex pedited the work of private members in dealing with the various matters that they want to bring before this Chamber; provided a more orderly means of dealing with them; given assurance to members of the dates in which those resolutions or that business would be dealt with; provided us with a better opportunity of dealing with them in a proper fashion.

Now the last Rule Committee report, as I mentioned, submitted to the House on Friday the 20th of March contained some recommendations and I wonder if I may just bring to the House's attention some of the recommendations that up to now we have seen no evidence of being complied with. One of them involves - those of you who have the report of Votes of Proceeding of Friday, March 20th, before you will be able to follow me as I bring them to your attention.

Clause No. 13 indicates that another clause be added to Rule 70 to provide for the replacement of a member of a committee in extreme circumstances such as, death, long illness, but not substituted for one occasion, and that the Legislative Assembly Act be amended accord ingly.

I have raised this matter with the Attorney-General, and I hope that sometime during the course of this debate some indication could be given whether or not there is the intention of the government to bring in an amendment to the Legislative Assembly Act dealing with this particular matter and this recommendation that was made by the Committee. Recommendation No. 18 deals with the installation on a permanent basis of sound equip ment, with recording and amplifying facilities for committee meetings in Room 2540 The sitting committee will decide in each case whether or not a transcript will be required.

Well, to a certain extent that has been done but it is not on a permanent basis, and I wonder if the Member from Inkster may want to deal with that in his replyo Recommendation Noo 20 deals with Secretarial Assistants on a year round basis. I wonder if the Board of Internal Eoonomy Commissioners have dealt with the particular measure, and if there has been any decision made to provide that kind of secretarial assistance on the year round basis for the various caucuses, or for the various groups in the House. Now, Sir, the one with which I want to deal with particularly is Recommendation No. 22.

Those members that were on the Rules Committee will recall that we had representations made by the news media in which they requested permission to record the proceedings in this House. We discussed this matter at some length, and I think that general agreement of members of the committee - there was no objections whatsoever on the part of the members of the committee to the news media installing recording equipment, or even television equipment in this House.

I think the only two stipulations that were made, and they are not contained in the report itself precisely in that fashion, but I think that if I recall the discussion that took place in the Com mittee correctly, the two stipulations were that we would have no objection to them installing their equipment in this Chamber providing, first of all, that it not be borne at public expense; and secondly, that if television cameras were to be established in this House, that the lights would not interfere with the members carrying on their functions. We had one experience in

March 24, 1972 371 (MR.

JORGENSON cont'd) ••.• , this Chamber for a couple of hours, and it was not a very good one, and we decided that there was no way we could authorize television cameras in this House if they were going to "cook" us down here; But if there is such equipment, and I under stand there is, that could record the proceedings of this House, or televise the proceedings of this House, all that is required is for radio and television media to be requested to prepare recommendations for proposals of the requirements for the technical facilities, which would be referred to a committee chaired by Mr, Speaker.

Well, Sir, this brings up a couple of pointil. The first one is: what committee? And I presume that it's the Rules Committee that is referred to which would mean that if an application from the news media were to be dealt with, it would have to be dealt with by a standing committee, or a special committee of this House. And to deal with that now, since the House has begun its work, would necessitate the setting up of the Rules Committee, and I would ask the government to set up that Rules Com mittee at the earliest possible opportunity so that we can deal with that particular matter.

Be cause, I understand, that a submission was presented to Mr. Speaker dealing with the installa tion of sound recording equipment in this Chamber, I had an opportunity to see the particular request of the radio people.

I think it was a reasonable request, and I think it is one that the committee would have no serious objection to, It would provide an opportunity for the news media to have continuous, since there is not available space in the gallery, communication with this Chamber, and the conditions under which they said they would use the material that was on tape were such that I don't think the Rules Committee would have any objection whatsoever. And I would suggest, Sir, that the committee be constituted for the purpose of dealing with that submission that was sent to Mr. Speaker.

Now then, the other matter that is contained in subsection 3 of clause 22 of the report dealt with the question of the immunity of members of this House. I have raised that matter with the Attorney-General as well, and he has promised that he will have a report ready for us, a legal opinion as to whether or not members' immunity would be aff ected by the installation.of sound or television equipment in this House.

And I hope that that could be done at the earliest opportunity, My understanding is that the television cameras .are now permitted in .at least one Legislature in this province, and the Province of Alberta, and I have noted, by some news reports, by news commentators, that we should proceed forthwith to do the same thing.

Well, I would like to remind the news media right now that there are no, so far as the recommenda tions of Rules Committee is concerned, there are no impediments to them proceeding, develop ing a plan for recording and televising proceedings in this Chamber providing it meets the broad conditions that were outlined in the committee report. But, in order to enable them to proceed I think that it must be necessary to have the Rules Committee set up at the earliest opportunity so that we can deal with the submission that has aleady been made to Mr.

Speaker, and I under stand that that submission was made on the 24th of January. It could have been dealt with prior to the meeting of this House, and I regret very much that it was not brought to our attention so that we could have dealt with it.

Now then, the final recommendation that I want to deal with in the committee report of February 20th was the question of providing bound copies of Hansard for each Caucus, and I wonder if that could be done, Now, a lot of people wonder why we want bound copies of Hansard in the Caucus room; I find them very useful in referring back to particular debates and things that were said at that particular time.

It's not an unreasonable request, and it's one that facilitates the work of members in doing the kinds of research that they would like to do on their own if given the material to do it with, and I wonder if the Minister would, or the Member for Inkster - I keep referring to him as the minister and that's out of force of a long-standing habit of mine now - but I wonder if he is able to give us a reply to those questions that I have raised at this time. Now in connection with the current report.

The major recommendation that is con tained in that report at the present time has to do with the recommended change in the pro cedures in dealing with the Estimates. We hope, and I believe, that the recommendations of the committee will indeed facilitate the examination of estimates in this Chamber, by first of all insuring that at least a minimum of hours will be spent on each of the set of .Estimates that are brought before this House.

Secondly, preventing the sort of thing that we witnessed during the last session when the former Minister of Highways attempted to monopolize the entire sittings of the committee by reading some of the most ludicrous reports that I've eVer listened to and provided an equal opportunity for all members of this Chamber to participate in the

372 March 24, 1972 (MR. JORGENSON cont'd) •.••• discussion on the Estimates, The system that has been in operation in the House of Commons for many years, the Estimates now are not dealt with in the House of Commons, but prior to that time provided for a 30 minute time limit and speeches in all committees. It proved to be no great hardship on any member because he had the oppor tunity of speaking as many times as he could get the floor to speak.

But it did ensure that at least a minimum amount of time was going to be afforded to all members to make a contribu tion in the consideration of Estimates or indeed in the committee, whether it be the Committee of the Whole House, Committee of Supply or the Committee of Ways and Means. And this recommendation, I think if accepted by this Chamber, will ensure all members of an opportunity to participate to the fullest extent in the examination of the Estimates.

We provide for an additional ten hours of consideration and that is I think reasonable in the light of the fact that there are considerably more activities on the part of the government that have to be examined, and in that respect, I think that this particular committee recognized the increasing workload of the Legislature and attempted to meet that by increasing the number of hours that were given to the examination of Estimates. We hope that the recommendations that are contained in this report will be adopted by this House so that we can proceed forthwith to a use of the new rules.

I think it is generally understood that they would be on a trial basis for .one year, and at the end of that year we'll re-examine,. we'll re-examine the application of those rules to find out if we are going to adopt them on a permanent basis or whether we want to change them or whatever we want to do.

I think it is a very useful and necessary practice to have the Rules Committee continuously examining our procedures in thiS Chamber to ensure that they are kept up to date and that we are able to do the kind of job that the Legislature is asked to without being inhibited by out dated rules that in the light of changes that are taking place from time to time, do not enable us to do the kind of job that we are asked to do, With these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with whatever specific comments I have to make when we get down to the items that are now before us on the particular recom mendations. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Perhaps --I am willing to yield to the Member for Rhineland if he wishes to make some general comments, if that's his wish, otherwise I'm prepared to continue. I intended to make some general comments in response to the Member for Morris but I'm will ing to yeild to the Member for Rhineland. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Me mber for Rhineland, MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't aware that this matter was going to be dealt with this morning.

I feel it rather inopportune on my part because not being a member of the committee as some of the other members of this House have been in between the sessions, I am not fully aware of the discussions that went on. I certainly have had no one to relate to me just what did transpire. I did go to attend one of the committee meetings but most of the work had already been done on a previous occasion and therefore, I have not got the experience of the discussions that took place at an earlier meeting. I still take exception to what happened last year and the changes that were made.

Other members may say that things worked out for them to their satisfaction but it certainly didn't to mine. Rule 68 for one. I take great exception to that procedure that was brought in last year, It doesn't give equal opportunity to all members of this House. --(Interjection)- Has he got a point of order, Mr •••• ? MR. GREEN: Yes I have a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for . MR. GREEN; With the greatest of respect Mr. Chairman, a general statement as to the committee report should not open the debate on last year's rule. Mr. Chairman, we have gone through that debate.

When we come to the various clauses in the committee, if one of the clauses relates to what the honourable member is talking about then. he can redebate it. I don't think that the Member for Morris reopened debate on last year's changes and I suggest --(Interjection)-- well, Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for Rhineland will be able to go back to the point o£ order, I really would hope that he would be quick, but if he is not going to be quick and if we're going to go through last year's report again, Mr. Chairman, then I would strongly object on a point of order, MR.

CHAIRMAN: I think the point is well taken, I think the Honourable Member for

l\Iarch 24, 1972 373 (MR. CHAIRMAN cont'd) .•••. Rhineland can make his contributions on the recommenda tions that are before the House, and if he wishes to opell. sections that he's not in agreement with I think that is a proper time to do so. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, when we discussed the report dealing with rules, this opens up the wrole subject of rules and I fail to see the Honourable Member for l!ikster's poi.Jlt because the matters raised by the Member for Morris certainly were matters that were dis cussed on a previous occasion.

The matter of bringing in television to ·this House and the - (Interjection)-- sure, he was debating the matter just a moment ago. 1\IR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, you've already ruled, but surely the Member for Morris- - . MR . CHAIRMAN: Do you have a point of order? MR . GREEN: Yes I do. The Member for Morris said we pass something when it is going to happen. He didn't say we passed something we shouldn't have let's unpass it. I think that there is a big distinction and with respect, Mr. Chairman, you have so ruled. 1\IR.

CHAIRI\-IAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland on the report that is before the Committee at this time. The Honourable Member for Rhineland; MR . FROESE: The report that was before us contains all the rules, Mr. Chairman. I see from the report that we are now going to discuss the matter of limiting the total number of hours that may be spent on Estimates. --(Interjection)-- The Minister says we're increas ing them. But at the same time you're limiting it and I think this is a trap.

Once we agree to it that we will do this, completely limit ourselves, then from there on we can start and bring the hours down to 70, 50 - as the years go on this will be lowered. I'm sure this is going to happen. This has been happening all these years, the latter years where we have had this committee sitting, that every time you bring in a report it takes away certain rights of the Opposition. A certain amount of muzzling is contained in every report that has been brought in· and this is going to happen from this report again, once it's being brought into effect.

I know that certain members of this House are - if you are not on a committee, you cannot make amendments in committee and therefore later in the House you're barred. Then, too, you're limited to the amount of hours, 48 hours to bring in your amendments and if you have a number of reports and you're an only member, this brings about great difficulty. And when I'm not even going to get an offtce this year, I'll have to do all the work in the hotel room. Certainly this is not fair, this is very unfair in my opinion.

I think we should have had a little more time in considering the report and what has been given to us. A year ago we left it for a couple of months on the Order Paper. I had no indication, no idea that this was going to be dealt with this morning and therefore I do not have my notes with me, whatever I'm going to say is strictly off the cuff and as we will be dealing with the various items.

I notice that provision under 68 again will be that you can take two stages at one sitt ing if a bill is not amended, and here again we may have some very valid things to say and if a member isn't in just at the time that the bill comes forward, he will have no opportunity, the bill is going to be passed before he'll have an opportunity of making a statement on it. And just by not having amendments this doesn't mean that members will not have statements to make on a given piece of legislation at that point. Mr.

Chairman, as I said I don't have my notes with me, therefore I will not keep the committee any longer at this stage. MR . CHAIRMAN: I thank the Honourable Member for Rhineland for his comments. The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm really quite satisfied that the honourable member with or without his notes would have made the same points and they do make a contribution to the debate and we accept it as such. I want to deal with some of the points raised by the Honourable Member for Morris and then I'd like to get to the report as quickly as we can.

First of all with regard to the legislation with regard to committees, I think the hon ourable member will remember that last year the Rules Committee Repart was adopted, oh at least mid way and perhaps beyond that through the Session, and I would expect that he is right, that the legislation should be forthcoming very shortly. With regard to the sound equipment, my advice is that it is installed; the permanent sound equipment is instalied. It was used by the Industrial Relations Committee. Just as with Autopac, some growing pains, but it's going to be working fine in due course. With regard to

374 March 24, 1972 (MR. GREEN cont'd) ••••• the television, I concur entirely with what the Honourable Member for Morris has said. I believe all of us, once the House decided to adopt the position, f eel that it should go ahead with due haste. Perhaps it might not be necessary for the House to appoint a formal committee, perhaps we could have the Speaker informally select a committee to deal with this matter, just a Speaker's Committee to get the thing underway.

But anything that could be done to expedite the matter we are quite prepared with, I think that you will recall that when we were on that side of the House we wanted this kind of thing to take place and we would be prepared to hav.e it happen as soon as possible. · MR. JORGENSON: . • . a question at this time. Is he aware that the communication that was delivered to Mr. Speaker on January 24th regarding the installation of tape recorders in the Chamber has been refused by Mr. Speaker :without calling a committee together or with out seeking the. advice of any member of the House. I wonder if he'd deal with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Labour and myself are not aware. I think that the proper thing to do would be for the House to ask to meet with the com mittee- perhaps the various House Leaders can ask to meet with the Speaker to deal with the very question that you have raised and to expedite the other matters. I think that that's certain ly agreeable to our side.

The member raised the immunity of members, I am hoping that the Attorney-General will do that; perhaps now that I have more time on my hands I should be asking him to consult me to give a legal opinion but I understand I guess I get paid by the government in any event; and without getting paid I'm not anxious to do a great deal of work. The bound copies of Hansard,the House has approved of thisji would ask the Clerk to advise us as to what has to be done to make sure that the various caucus rooms get them.

The House approved that the Committee recommends that each caucus be provided with a bound copy of Hansard, that's then the Clause No. 25 and I would ask that that be expedited as well. I want to say just a few words, Mr, Speaker, about the problems raised by the Member for Rhineland. I can't do anything more but to try and assure him that the Rules Committee meets under various different circumstances than what he expects. He thinks that there's a government group trying to muzzle the opposition and an opposition group trying to break in on time.

The Member for Morris has indicated by a slip of the tongue that I am no longer a Minister and whether the honourable member believes it or not, I consider myself an MLA in this House and although I don't predict it, I always feel that democratic process being what it is, I may some day be in the Opposition and when I --(Int erjection) -- and when I am consider ing rules, I assure the honourable member or at least I try to assure him that I am considering how they would affect me on that side of the House which was the case at one time, and I also believe that the Member for Morris has aspirations of being over here and that --(Interjection) -- just let me continue • • • MR.

CHAIRMAN: On a point of order? The Member for Rhineland on a point of order, MR. FROESE: Yes the point of order is the Minister is leaving the House to believe that there are no restrictions or that there are no further restrictions; the restrictions now are that the total business of Estimates are restricted to 90 hours, MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I don't think that that constitutes a point of order. The Honourable Member for Inkster, MR. GREEN: All I'm trying to indicate, Mr.

Speaker, is that I believe that the Hon ourable Member for Morris when he makes recommendations with regards to the rules is thinking in his mind that someday I am going to be a Minister of the Crown; I'm going to be on that side, I want the government to be able to operate and therefore when I make a rule I don't want to be in a position that it is going to stifle me at some future stage; and that all of the rules that we have made I believe are hedged by both sides in that direction and when the honourable member says that we have limited estimates, we have been limiting estimates in this House for years and years and the logic of his position could just as well move in the other direction.

This year the limit has been moved from 80 hours to 90 hours and therefore if it can move from 80 hours to 90 hours it can be moved from 90 hours to 100 hours. The logic can move in either direction. And I don't, Mr. Speaker -if the honourable member will just sit still for a moment - I am suggesting that there have been leanings both ways, the 80 hours for 90 hours were not yielded on without any consideration at all.

March 24, 1972 • 375 (MR. GREEN cont'd) • Basically the changes that were made - and I'm going to outline what I think were the key changes and see whether the Member for Morris agrees with me, that really the Rules Committee dealt with three main points: i. The fact that on estimates we are not getting to every department and that some departments are able to be retained by the gover nment so that at the end of the 80 hours they are not even dealt with.

What we said was, okay let's take the total number of hours whether it be 80 or 90, divide it into the number of departments and see to it that each department is reached by giving only that number of hours to a department on its first review by the House.

The opposition then would have in its control the giving up of a department and lea\'ing more time at the end for further review, --(Interjection)-- Now then, 1\Ir, Chairman, I would really ask that the honourable member wait until the explanation is made fully, That that was the first basic change, The second basic change was for us to say that we feel that the time that is spent on concurrences has the ·potential of opening up the Estimates for another 80 hours, --(Interjection)--That's true, and I don't think, you know.

The only one who doesn't think of ever being in government is the Member for Rhineland, because if he ever thought that he'd be in government he would know that the Estimates can't last forever, The Member for Morris knows that if he's in government the Estimates have to have a certain· sense to them. I think every other member of the House would know but the Member for Rhineland who knows that the people will never elect his party to be in government says, "we-ll let's not let the government govern".

Now that's not the way rules are going to be made, So what had happened was is that we said we will give --the government will yield an additional ten hours on Estimates plus the new system; the opposition will say that there will be one con currence debate at the end of the department and it will not be subject to amendment, which means that you can have on that concurrence debate 57 speeches, 56, the Speaker doesn't enter into it. And that will be what is allowed on a concurrence debate, 56 speeches, That's not enough for the Honourable Member for Rhineland because he can only make one.

But that's what is permitted on a concurrence debate and that was the saw-off in this direction. That was deal ing with Estimates, 1\ill , CHAIRMAN: Does the Member for Morris .. • MR. JO FGENSON : ... pointed out that that is an addition to the 90 hours, yes ? 1\ill , GREEN: At the end of the 90 hours , after 90 hours you've still got 57 speeches on each r1epartment, --(Interjection)-- Well of course you're not going to have that many be cause people in the House are a little bit more sensible that you are, That's right. MR. HARRY J, ENNS (Lakeside) : Mr. Chairman, would the member permit a ques tion ?

I always listen with interest to the honourable member in his arithmetic about the possi bility of 56 speeches being made on concurrence, Can we take that as an indication from the government that by that time, or by the time the concurrence motions will be filled that the seat from Wolseley will be filled? 1\ill , GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member knows full well that I'm talking about hypothetically 56 speeches because surely there are not going to be 56 speeches, and this is what the Honourable Member from Rhineland is complaining about, He says that there won't be and therefore it's a bad rule, The other --well that was the Estimates saw-off and I think it's a good one, either side of the House, The next saw-off occurred because of the astuteness of the opposition last year.

The opposition saw that their time in Estimates is limited· to SO hours so they said, we have all these tabling of reports and there are all kinds of committees, anrl usually a motion to receive a report has gone undebated, or there has been very sparse debate, Where we are limited on estimates we can do a lot of discussion on the recei\'ing a report and they used that, and I give them credit for it, but it was not in keeping with the government's expediting of the matters in the House and eventually, as you will re call, the government resorted to their countermove and the countermove was that we would not table the reports·u ntil everything else was done, and we could have continued, I mean we could have continued this war of nerves where if a report was tabled there would be 56 speeches on it, or that all of the reports would not be tabled until the end of the Session, which would do neither the opposition good nor the government good, So we said there will be a saw-off here, We will agree that a motion to receive a report is not debatable, However, if there is a motion to approve of the report that follows, and that motion is made by the government side then it is fully debatable; if it is made by the opposition side it is fully debatable, but on private mem� hers' time and that this will no longer result in any necessity of the government organizing its

376 March 24, 1972 (MR .G REE N cont'd) •.... business so that reports are not pre sented as soon as poss ible . And I think that that was a dec ent saw-off. And you know we haven't, neither have they figured out every way to get at us, nor have we figured out every way to re spond. And I' m sure -- I am sure that during this Se ssion that given the agility and ingenuity of the Member for Morris and other members, and even the l\Iember for Rhineland, that things will arise over the year which we 'll have to look at next year , and every year .

That 's parliament, and none of us ob ject to that and those were esse ntially -- I believe that when we talk about conduct of the House I believe that' those are esse ntially the changes that have been made , that other than that the Rules Committee has not made any substantial change s with regard to conduct -- well of course we 'll be getting to them specifically and if I' ve left something out, it will loom very large when we do get to it. The Honourable JI.Iember for l\Iorris said one thing which I think we should have an under standing on right away ; he said that this was a trial basis .

I don't wa nt to object to that but trial in the sense that we wo uld set up the Rules Committee again next summer, not that the rules wo uld stop operating once they are adopted . In other words we will pass them , they will stay on the books unless they are changed, they wo n' t expire at the end of the year . It 'll be the same as what happened with last year 's rule report, that they stayed on the books , that we had an opportunity of rec onsidering them at the summer break . We 'll do the same thing this time but the rules will stay in force , they will not expire at the end of the year .

I think that that is the only pos sible stipulation that I wo uld wa nt to make as to the Jl.' ember for l\Iorris ' remarks . But otherwise, Mr. Speaker , I say this wit h an attempt at convincing the honourable member that we have worked consc ientiously, that both sides of this House and the l\' ember for Portage la Prairie, who was al so in attendance, operated on the basis that these rules were good whether one sits in the opposition or one sits in government, and that is the basis upon which they are put forwa rd. The government has not agreed to these rule s for the purpose of stifling the opposition.

For the first time since the Member for Rhineland has sat in the House he will have an opportunity, a certain opportunity, if these rules are passed of raising questions every departmental Estimates where money is spent . That has never been his prerogative in the past .. MR . CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for l\Torri s. MR . JORG ENSON: I would just like to make one comment in connection wit h the last statement made by the JV'ember for Inkster about the rules being on a trial basis .

Th at is prec isely what I meant, and I think I indicated in my remarks that the Rules Committee should be set up -- I 'm not suggesting on a continuous basis I don't know whether it wo uld be nec ess ary to have them as a Standing Committee of this House but I think they should be set up each year so that members of the House who have any particular grievanc e against any particular rule if he feels it is affecting , .. adversely can draw that matter to the attention of the Rules Committee and then it can be reviewed . I wo uld al so make a further suggestion.

The l\Iember for Rhine land, and I appreciate the position that he 's in, complains that he never had the opportunity of sitting in on the Rules Committee and I wo nder, it may not be pos sible for the Cl erk to advise independent member s, those who are not officiall y represented on the committee , at least advise them when the com mittee is sitting so that if they choose to they can take

part in the deliberation s of the Rules Committee so that he then has an opportunity of hearing the discus sions and knowing the reasons why ce rtain rec ommendations are being made . If that can be done perhaps it will eliminate the sort of grievance that the l\Iember for Rhine land has raised today. I would certainly be happy on my part to have him sit in with the committee and have the benefit of his view s regarding some of the rule change s that we may be deliberating at the time . MR . CH AIRMAN : The Honourable l\li nister of Labour. MR . PAULLEY : .l\Ir .

Chairman, two points by the Honourable Me mber for l\Torris I wo uld like to reply to or to comment on.

First of all his suggestion that the Rules Committee be established and given the power to meet, I would suggest, on ca ll in between the Eessions, I assure him as a member of the treasury bench such a resolution will be introduced in order that that might be done and I 'm sure that the honourable member is in agreement with my colleag ue from Inkster that trial means not necess arily just terminating at a particular time but will be continuing until changed through the Committee and to the desire of the Asse mbly itself.

March 24, 1972 377 (MR . PAUL LEY cont'

d) The second point regarding the notices of the meeting of the Rules Committee , and other committees as well, it's my understanding that this has been done . As a matter of fact I believe the member for Thom pson was down on occasion or two because he was interested in committees of which he was not actually a member but did rec eive notice, and if inadvertently my honourable friend from Rhine land didn't get the notices it was o;1r intention and a direction that this be done . So that's all I wa nt to say at this time, Mr . Chairman, regarding those two points .

First I assure my honourable friend the l\Iember for Morris provision will be made for the es tablish ing of the committee to meet in bet ween sessi ons before we rise in a couple of weeks or so and then the other, the point of notification , we 'll check that . IIIR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhinela nd . 1\IR . FROE SE: l\I r. Chairman , after hearing the Member for Inkster and the Member for Morris I think I should add a few words . I feel that the Conservatives are selling the members of this House short by agreeing to some of the things that are being proposed.

We are now in cluding the main , supplementary and interim estimates in the 90 hours. This has not been the case previously when we discussed the 80 hours, have the 80 hours in -- and last year we spent very considerable time in discussing capital supply and the interim.

And then another point which I take exc eption to is that at this ses sion we 've already abided by these rules and they were not in effect because I tried to adjourn debate on the rec eipt of committee reports twice and the government refused every time . --(Interjection) -- You can vote against it but it sure doesn't look like open government does it ? You people claiming to be - having open government ... MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour on a point of order . l\ffi . FROESE: ... every time that we try and adjourn debate on a report ... MR . PAU LL EY : On a point of order , Mr .

Chairman. · MR . CH AIRMAN: Order plea se . The Honourable Minister of Labour on a point of order . MR . PAULLE Y : Mr . Chairman, I can und erstand my honourable friend but my point of order is that we do abide by the rules and that the majority of the House controls the House and if the majority of the House be they considered as individual members, or government members, votes against a motion it's not in violation of any of the rules of the House. MR . CHAIRMAN: I think the point is well taken. The Honourable Member for Rhineland . MR .

FROES E: We had no business going acc ording to these rules as long as they had not been adopted by the House and this is exac tly what happened . MR . GREEN: Mr . Chairman, the honourable member -- on a point of order, Mr . Speaker , on a point of the privileges of the House, the honourable member is suggesting that the Speaker of the House permitted the rriembers to violate the rules, and I say that he has no right to make that type of charge and I wo uld ask him to stop. MR . CH AIRMAN: I think the point is well taken and I would suggest to the Honourable Member for Rhineland ... Order please .

I wo uld suggest to the Honourable r.·ember for Rhine land that he confine his remarks to the debate that is taking place and not comment on the rules of the House . I think the rule s of the House were adopted last year, and those are the rules that we operated under . The Honourable Member for Rhineland . MR . FROES E: The Speaker ce rtainly didn't act acc ording to the rule s that we had adopted last year , he adopted the new rules ... MR . CHAIRMAN: Order, please . MR . FROES E: .. by calling a motion out of order MR . CHAIRMAN : Order . Order .

The Honourable Member for Rhineland -- I' ve alre ady warned him once -- confine your remarks to the res olutions that are here before us and not comment on the conduct of the House and say that the Speaker has not been following the rule s. I' m going to rule that out of order . The Honourable Member for Rhineland . MR . FROESE : Mr . Chairman, we are debating the proposition here in the change of the rules, one of which is that a motion to rec eive a report will no longer be debatable .

This is not in effect as yet , and therefore we should not be told by the Speaker that cert ain motion s are out of order, when that particular rule is not ... MR . SPEAKER : Order ple ase . Order . The Honourable Member for Rhine land I have told him that this is out of order. Now would you confine your remarks to the busine ss of the Committee at this time . The Honourable 1\Tember for Rhineland . MR . FROE SE: Mr . Chairman , then I challenge your ruling . --(Interjection)-- I will be cause I was called out of order.

37S ::IIarch 24 , 1972 Rec ording failure here . Il\ SE SSION l\IR. WILLIAM JENKINS (Lo gan): l\Ir. Speaker, ... Committee of the Whole House di s cus sing .. .. Committee on the rules of the House, the Honourable 1\Iember for R hineland stated that.l\Ir. Speaker violated the rules of the House by refusing to debate on Report of Committee . I ruled the honourable member out of order whe reupon the Honouraqle l\Iember for Rhineland challenged ·my decis ion . lYIR. SPEAKE R : Order please . The question before the House : shall the deci sion of the Chair be sustained ? l\IR.

SP EAKER put the question and after a voice Yote declared the motion carried . 1\IR. SP EAKER : The Honourable :Member for Logan . 1\IR. FROE SE: Ayes and nays, Mr . Speaker . A l\IEl\IB ER : Support; lYIR. SPEA KER: Call in the mem�ers . Order ple ase . The question in regards to division before the House: shall the deci sion of the Chairma n be confirm ed ? A STANDING VOTE was taken , the result bei ng as follow s: YE AS: 1\Iessrs.

A dam , Allard, Ba rrow , Bo rows ki , Boyce, Burtniak, Cherniack, Desja rdi ns, Do ern , E\·a ns, Gottfried, Green, Hanuschak, Jenkin s, Johan nso n, l\IcBryde , Mackling, l\lalinow ski . Mill er , Paulley, Peturss on , Shafransky , Toupin , Turnbull, C ski\\· , Uruski and Walding . NAYS: Messrs . Ba rkman , Beard, Bilton, Blake , Cr aik, Einarso n, Enns, Ferguson , Fro ese, Girard, Graham , Henderso n , Jorgen son, l\IcGill, l\IcGregor, l\IcKen zie , l\Ioug, Patrick, Sherman , Watt and 1\Irs. Trueman . l\IR . CL ERK : Aye s 27, nays 21. l'IIR.

SPEAKER: In my ojJinion the ayes have it and I declare the motion carrie d. MR . SPEA KER : The Honourable Member for Logan . COl\I:MJTTEE OF THE WHOLE HOL'SE 1\IR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable :l\Iember for Inkster . MR . GREEK: ::\Ir. Speaker , I propose that we move to the report itself, deal with the report paragraph by paragraph . ::IIR. CHAIRMAN: (P aragraphs (

a) to (

d) were read and pas sed .) The Honourable l\Iember for St. Vi tal. l\IR. JAl\I ES WA LDIKG (St. Vital): I might just bring to the House 's attention one small incident that happened at a committee meeting between sess ions, and I' m not sure if the com mittee had discussed this or may'Je they could do , but in one of the special committees, a delegation was invi ted to appear before the committee and they brought \\'ith them a small tape reco rder and asked if they could record the proce edings to take back to their particular organ ization . After a little bi t of discu ssi on the Chairman ruled against it.

K ow I don 't know whether this is peculiar to special committees but I haYe noticed that during the hearings of standing co mmittees the press do bring into the committee rooms tape recorders and actually record the proceedings , and we were not too sure on the committee whether there was any distinction there, or whether this should or should not be allowed, that maybe this is something that could be dis cussed and settled at this time. 1\IR. CHAIRMAN : I thank the honourable member . Any further discus sion " (Pa ragraphs (

e) and (

f) were read and passed .) The Honourable 1\Iember for Rhineland . MR . FROESE : l\It. Chairman , I di scussed this particular

section before . I just want to onc e more reiterate my opposition to that particular provi sio n and the changes. 1\IR. GREE N: Is the honourable member suggesting that we stay at SO hours , because that is the existing rule ? l\I.R . FROESE: My suggestion is that we wo uld not restrict the ·hours that we spend on capital and capital supply , interim supply, and so on , and I don't beli eve in restrictions what ever for the members of this House . MR . GREE K: Is the honourable member aware that if he deletes clause (

f) that the re striction will say. SO hours instead of 90 hours " Is he asking for the deletion of clause (f) " Is he voting against that? To go back to SO hours.

March 24 , 1972 379 MR . FROESE: I' d remove both . I thought I made that clear . I'm not in favour of any restrictions whatever . MR . GREEN: Thank you . Mr . Speaker, I' d like a standing vote on (f) . Standing 'vote on (f). A COUNTED VOTE was taken. MR . CHAIRMAN : I declare (

f) pas sed . MR . GR EEN: Mr . Chairman, I' d like the Nays on (f). MR . CHAIRMAN : Oh , I beg your pardon . All those opposed ? MR . CL ERK : One . MR . CHAIRMAN : I declare the motion passed . (g) -- pas sed . --( Interjection)-- Oh, I beg your pardon . That would be the vote that we took was on (f) (63) (1 ) . Agreed" (Agreed) (63) (2) - - passed . The Honourable Member for Inkster . . MR . GR EE N: Mr . Ch airman, by way of explanation there will be some degree of cooper ation necessary in dealing with this rule .

The Cl erk has informed me that the index contains for instance 22 items one of which is Special ARDA Agreements, one of which is Flood Co ntrol and Emergency Expenditures, which fall in the Department, for instance, one of those falls generally in the Depart ment of Agricul ture, and one generally in the Department of Mines and Natural Reso urces, that there would be understandably some agreement necessary to say that this is the number of departments. Northern Affairs for instance falls in the Department of Municipal Affairs.

So we would ask at the beginning each time that there be agreement that there are 20 departments composed of these headings and then divide the 90 hour s by the 20 departments and proceed in that way. MR . CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Member for Rhlneland. MR . FRO ESE: 1\Ir. Chairman, I don't think that we should devote equal time between the various departments and if we 're just going to divide the number of hour s by the number of de partments that we ha ve, this would be very lopsided because we have departments where we spend what is it ? - clos e to $200 million , and another probably one or two million .

Are we going to just spend equal time on these departments" Cer tainly I would not agree to such a way of dealing with the Estimate s. And as the Mini ster pointed out there should be a certain amount of flexibility. I agree to that but -- or the member . Mr . Chairman , I also would like to have some say as to how we are going to make the div ision . This way it 's left open . MR . CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourable Minister of Labour . MR . PAULLEY : I realize it 's a difficult task , Mr . Chair man, to try and convince the Member for Rhine land as to what the general understanding is of the change in this rule .

My colleague from Inkster and also the Member for Morris has attempted to outline what the propo sition is . And surely to goodness it should be understood even by my friend from Rhlneland that what --(Interjectio n)- - I' m on the floor now if you don't mind; what we intend to do and we have made this very very clear, is to divide the number of hou rs, total hours 90 by the number of departments .

Fir st it was a question of 15 which gave us approximately six hour s to each department and it was understood clearly I thought to almost everyone that if the six hour s was not utilized for any department we 'd pass on to the next department and then after we'd gone through all of the departments any remaining hours would then be utilized by the House as it saw fit and the calling of the several different departments .

I don't know if I have now cl arified it for my honourable friend, I have my dou bts but at least we have attempted to do this and the main principle behind thi s is to give members of the House an opportunity of considering some time in every single department. Under the new rules, the proposed rules

whereas it was pos sible under the SO-hour rule that by manipulation either by Oppos ition or by Gove rnment the whole of the 80 hours could be conceivably taken up by one department and there was always o!Jjections; there was always objections that deliberately or otherwise the governments were accused of using up the time . I know when I was on the other side of the House we accused the government of having their Ministers - their members, and the likes of that take

part in debate so that we wouldn't get certain departments . Since we have become the government the Oppos ition has carried on, I guess they must have used my same speeches because we are now come to an agreement of the valid ity of the points that we used to raise while we were in Opposit ion . I don't think there 's any disagreement with the Oppos ition in this House to thi s proposa l and if memory serve s me correctly, Mr .

Chairman; basica lly it was the propos ition of the Honourable Member for Morris that this be done in order to acc ommodate a scrutiny of all of the estimates of the departments before us. I rec ognize , I 'm sure as any reasonably intelligent member of the House will

380 :\Iarch 24, 1972 (IIIR . PACLLE Y cont'd) ..... rec ognize, that we may not in some departments be able to giYe full scrutiny wi thin the six hours . That being the case, well then let's cut down some of those that we don 't want to scrutinize for the full period of the six hours in order to have a greater proportion left at the end and then a reasses sment of the posi tion . TIIR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Swan River . l\IR. JAl\IES H. BILTOK (Swa n Ri\·e r) : As a member of this Committee, l\!r .

Chairman , I would like to inform the House that a considerable time was spent on this particular subject and all we were endeaYouring to do was to search out some way that all departments wo uld be at least coyered once and I think the Honourable the l\Iinister of Labour has explained it very very well indeed; and I would hope that those that are di ssa tisfied wit h it would realize that all we 're attempting to do is to see to it that all Es timates are dealt w- ith through the 90 hours and that after all, why not give it a chanc e, or give it an opportunity to work and the proof will be in the pudding - if it doe sn 't wo rk the House is its own master and can eliminate it next year .

TIIR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Churchill . l\IR. GORDON W. BEA RD (Churchill): I would agree in principle of what the House le ader has stated, Mr . Chairman . I believe there should be an equal division with the departments to start with . I don 't agree with the Member for Rhineland that we should pay more attention to one department just because we spend more money in that particular department. I don't think that money neces sarily has that much priority on a department because we spend more money . I believe there are other things that are impo�·tant in a department besides money .

I would question though the policy if we can save time at the end of our Estimates of deciding how we '11 go back and spend that time after, I think if we save time then I think that we could well go on to other things and probably shorten the sessio n rather than go back and try and find ways and means of spending those extra hours to stay in here a little longer because I think an average of s·ix hours for every department is certainly long enough. We get very repetitious as it is and after six hours .I am sure we' ve all said what - at least once what we 've covered, the de partment as a whole . MR .

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside . l\IR. EKNS: Mr . Chairma n , I have not entered into the debate with respect to the new rules that we are now adopting for the remai nder of the sessio n but I would want to enter into a word of caution or two and direct some remarks specifically to you, l\Ir. Chairman , as our chairman of the committee which will be dealing with the estimates and also to the House Leader of the government. I have some res ervation with resp ect to the limitations that we 're imposing upon ourselves and they stem from this sourc e.

Traditionally in this Chamber whether you are in the Chair , Sir , or the Speaker is in the Chair it is a rec ognized proc edure of moving from one side of the House to the other side and rec ognizing the speakers who wis h to speak to a certain subject matter.

I believe it is also a tradition , and well accepted and well founded tradition , that by and large the whole purp ose of parliament is of course to have the estimates, the tax revenues as how they're being proposed to be spent by the government to come under the full scrutiny examination of the Opposition so that in this particular area of parliamentary procedure due, you know, cons ideration of that principle role of the Opposition should and has to be recognized; and the conc ern that I have that if we are limiting ourselves to six hours of debate and if the government members choose to use up as could well happen half or then in conclusion of a ministerial statement at the introduction of those Es timates it could quite concei vably come about that the Opposition is left wit h one or two hours or half an hour or one hour to debate a certain estimates.

In other words, Mr . Chairma n , if there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the government or of a l\Iini ster of a specific department to avoid scrutiny even under those re stricted limitations of six hours of debate in a department, it can be done by an unsc rupulous I\Iinister or government that choo ses to avoid and to thwart the function of the Opposition. I nevertheless concur with the rec ommendations made .

I only wis h to offer at least, at least place on the record the other rule change which permits a greater latitude of discus sion of the entire department under con sideration at the time of concurrenc e; that's my understand ing of the rulerather than on the details of the individual , you know, subheading and sections of each department as they were under the old rule and where we had to contain ourselves or contain our motions of non concurrence to that specific

section of a department. We now have a greater latitude as I understand the proposed changes at the time of concurrence . Howe ver , l\Ir. Chairman , both you and I know and the members of the Chamber know that at the time, at

March 24, 1972 - 381 (MR. EN NS cont'd) ..... the end of 80 hours or 90 hours now of Est imates, there is often a general prevai li ng pressure on the House. The news medi a believes that we have discusse d al l thi ngs amply and wel l. I shoul d now like to inform you, Sir, and the Hous e Leader of the government and the one remaining beautiful memoer of the Fourth Es tate that should this occur in any specific department then I believe we woul d be entirely jus tified in using fully the expansion of the non concurrence motions and that it would be our intention to do so. _M R.

CH AIRMA N: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. LEON ARD A, BARKMAN (La Verendrye) : Thank you, Mr. Ch airman.

I shal l be very brief, except to agree that we all know the time has come where something had to be done and I think we' ve had good exampl es last year and the year before, and last year was a mat ter of not getting at the big Department of Industry and Commerce the way perhaps we in the Op posi tion wou ld have liked to and others; but I'm al so a 1 ittle bit concerned as to -- and I was not on this committee and perhaps the sol ution has been found in the mmds of those that were on the committee -- but I wonder, after some time has been left over from different departments how are you going to choose wnat department to speak on afterwards and how are you going to avoid debate between groups or whatever.

I wonder if this is not a bit of a prob lem I am concerned about at this time, and perhaps you have a sol ution. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhi ne land. MR. FR OESE : Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Inkster was talking about flexibi lity before. I think the rules do not provide the necessary flexibility that I wo uld like to see in it especia lly in this part.

If we• re going to di vide up the time between equal time between the various departments and if we do have a department where we do wish to spend more time on, I think I would like to see a provis io n in there so that we coul d do it at that particular time, not go through all the estimates and then revert back to a certain department. This takes away the continuity that we would like to have at that particular time When we discuss a certai n aspect.

Let• s say Hydro will be a very important matter that will be di scussed under Mines and Resources and -- or utilities -- and surely enough by interrupting it somewnere in the middl e of a di scussi on, I would feel that we have a provision in the rules wh ereby we coul d by unanimous consent extend the hours of a particular - the estimates of a particular department wnen we are already discuss ing them. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourabl e Member for Inkster. MR. GR EEN: Mr. Chai rman, let me first of all say that . MR. WA TT: . . . the Member from Inkster -- could I just make a comment on MR.

CHAIRMA N: The Honourabl e Member for Arthur. MR. WA TT: Frrst, I'd like to say, Mr. Chai rman, that I concur and I agree with the recommendations of the Committee. I think that it's a move in the ri ght di rect ion actua ll y to try to spread out our time over di fferent departments . But I have the same concern as the Memoer for La Verendrye. In the case -- when we end up at the end of all departments and we have -- while, Sir, I suggest a free year of floating hours actuall y that haven' t been used up in Agriculture or haven' t been used up in the At torney-General 's Department.

What will the mechanics then be, I mean how will we establish wnat departments are going to be revi ewed again shall we say; and how are you goin g to control ov er whether - supposi ng that we end up with 10 hours, shal l I say agai n, free and float ing? Is there any way that we can stop the government or that the government can stop the Opposition from usin g all 10 hours up on one department that hasn• t been ihcl uded. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourabl e Member for Inkster. MR. GRE EN: I want ed to deal with that poi nt because the Member for Morris and members of the committee dealt with this fully.

We recognize the fact that at the present time this is in the hands of the government, that it' s in the hands of the government wit h re gard to all the department s. And not only is it in the hands of the government with regard to al l of the departments, but presumabl y memoers from the government if they wish to be unscrupul ous as mentioned by the Member from Lakeside, they co uld go in to the first depart ment and they co uld refuse to pass the estimates on that department by continui ng to speak endlessly for the full 80 hours.

If one wanted to devise as to what co uld happen, we co uld go int o department let us say of something innocuous like Mines and Resources which is not controversia l and we could stay in that department, we could ask each of our members to continue to speak, we could say if the memoers of the Opposition want to pass it, no we don' t want to pass it, we want to continue and use up 80 hours. Theoretic al ly that could happen.

382 March 24, 1972 (MR.

GRE EN cont 1 d) , , , , , So we have said -- th is rul e by the way, the one that we are di scu ssi ng now 1 bel ieve is one of the leani ngs that was made the other way, that we sai d we• re goi ng to gi ve the Opp osti on more controt ov er the Es timates -- not compl et e control but more control -- and that at the end of them ha vi ng their assi gned time for each department we go back to the old syst em and that is that the government has the right to then cal l departments as they see fit, subj ect however, to a very . important change that no memo er not even a mini ste r can speak for more than 30 mmutes, and that is even on the first run; a person can speak for only 30 mmutes; if he can get the floor agai n then he can speak fo:r: 60 mmutes, but if one wants to figure out what can be unscr upulously done I don' t even thi nk that al l of the imagi nat ions have been used up.

I suppose that many thi ngs can be unscru pul ously done but what we have done with this rul e, which I repeat as a supporter of the government, I• d be prepared to drop the rul e w hi eh means that we are back to the ol d system ; but it wa.sn' t ri ght in the eyes of all of the members that some departments never ever got consi.dered. So we sai d that for the first run unl ess, I repeat, unl ess there is real unscru pul ous ness and then that can only last for four hours or wnatever the time is al lotted to each de part ment, the Op posi tion will pret ty wel l have control .

They can say we'l l work this departme nt over or we won' t we• ll 1 et it pass, in whi eh case at the end we• ll get another w at the next department that the government bri ngs al ong and if we don• t like what they• ve broug ht along at the end of 80 hours we' 11 let that pass and hope to get to the one that we want to..

Now that is their posit ion today except the rul e change is an improvement, because it means that no mat ter how the government tried it coul dn' t avoid a departme nt; it could only use up, presumabl y, and I hope that thi s woul d not take place, it coul d use up ful l hours if the Opposi tion -- four hours or whatever it was if the Opposi tion wanted to get into it.

So I recog ni ze that every rule change you make can be looked at by members as to what can we do wit h thi s, But I thi nk th at thi s rul e ch ange makes it better from the posi tion of the Opp osi tion, and then the protecti on that is afforded the other way, that if the government tri es to do thi ngs whi eh are wrong in terms of the proper consi derat ion of the Est imat es, then what the Memoer for Lakesi de said comes into pl ay.

When we get the concurrences -- i t• s true, you can• t do -- it' s not as flexi ble as it is in the committee in that you can• t get up and make a second speech but you• ve got 40 minutes because we• re back in the Hous e on the concurrenc es, we•re back in the Ho use -- that• s correct is it not? The concurrence mot ions are looked after in the House so you' ve got 40 minutes to speak and if we have behaved improperl y in terms of a department than I'm sure that you will make it miserabl e for us during that concurrence motion.

So therefore, in spite of the quest ions that have been rai sed and I agree that there are questi ons, on the whol e it comes out better than it di d under the previ ous syst em and that is wnat we have provided for. We have attempted to pro vi de for an improvement. It doesn't do everything that the Oppos it ion wants, it doesn• t let the government run roughshod over what is goin g to happen, it is an attempt to faci litat e a proper debate in the Hou se.

If we come to a department that you don' t want to deal wi th, as a resul t of your not wanting to deal wi th it the government gets up and starts talki ng on that department even though you want to pass it , I bel ieve that the peopl e have the means of tel ling the pol it ici ans that we didn• t like wnat you did, and we are cognizant of that, we are cogni zant of that and we have to behave accordin gl y. MR. CHAIRMA N: The Honourabl e Member for Os borne. MR. TURNBU LL: Mr. Chairman, I didn' t wish to let the remarks of the MemDer for Lakesi de pass without comment from me.

His remarks I thi nk were based on the cu stom and usage of parl iamentary tra di tion in that he maintains that it is the opposi tion• s func tion, sol ely the oppos ition' s function, to criticize the Est imates of the government benches and I think that that idea is based on the custom and usage of our parlia mentary tradition.

But I shoul d poi nt out to hi m that constituti onal ly , of cou rse, parties are not recog ni zed, and the right of any private member to rise and cri tici ze the front bench I don' t thi nk shoul d be impaired and I know that he didn• t real ly mean to impai r the right of a backbencher to critici ze the Es timat es pres ented by the front bench. What conc erned me about his remarks, Mr.

Chairman, was that he did impl y that if memoers of the government side ros e to criti ci ze the Est imat es of the Cabinet that somehow �his might be, could be construed at least as to be unscrupul ous behaviour on their parts, and I woul d like to dis suade hi m trom hOlding that poi nt of view. If I feel at any time as a

,--- ----- ---- -- March 24, 1972 383 (M R. GR EEN cont•d) . . . . . government backbencher that I want to rise and criticize the estimates of any particular Minister, I shal l do so; and if I think that I must criticize them in as strenuously a manner as I can possible muster, I will do that. And I hope, Sir, that the Member for Lakeside will not feel that I am being unscru pulous becaus e I exercise my rights, my traditional rights as a private member of the government side. MR. CHAIRMA N: The Honourabl e Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, not wanting to needl essl y, unneedl essl y, you know unmmd full y bring this debate into -- on this particul ar point as long as it had to be, but the mat ter that the Honourabl e Member for Osb orne raises touches precis ely on the concern that I had just earlier expre sse d. You se e, Sir, our problem is that on this side of the House we know where we stand, We stand in opposition to the government. Our difficulty w1th the other side of the House is we don' t know who is in opposi tion to the government and who is with the government.

And quite properly I think -- and I have no wish -- and I think perhaps the use of the word "unscru pul ous" was the wrong choice of a word. But we are tal king about se tting sp ecific limitations to the examination of Est imates. I'll even drop the word off the opposition's examination of the Es timates for the benefit of the Member for Osborne.

And when we accept as we all are going to accept that limitation, then I think there is an additional onus, or respo nsibility, pl aced on the government that those Estimates do rec eive, you know, the widest and possible examination by the oppos ition members in this Hous e. I would, you know, really have to also indicate to you, Mr.

Chairman, that one would hope that the members who enjoy the privileges and confidences of their front bench and their Ministers of the treasury, that certainly within their caucus meetings, within the formulation of programs, formulation of their estimates, long prior to that they appear here in the Hous e make their valuable contribu tions to the development of these estimates, to the devel opment of their policies and programs, and that of course is a difficulty that some members oppos ite have failed to grasp, that is their role in their own caucus and as compared to their role here in this Chamber.

Now without -- we can have it either way, I think, in terms of you know, if we accept the position and it's quite a correct position to accept and certainly constitutionally very su pportable that every member is here on the basis of the constituency that he repres ents ; and cer tainly there is no constitutional question about prohibiting the rights of any member to us e whatever time he chooses, how he chooses to use his time in this House.

We do though progressively try to make, formulate rules that will facilitate an ever increasing complex government business, we do this by means of trying to accommodate each other in a way that the business of the House can be handled in an expeditious manner. And when we' re dealing in this specific area where we mutually agree to limitations for the sake of expediting the matters before us, than I think the comments that I made earlier have validity, and I look to you, Sir, Mr.

Chairman, to assisting us in se eing that the estimates now before us will in fact have every opportunity to be examined by at least the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition whose res pons ibility it is to do exactly thus. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROE SE: Mr. Chairman, just before we leave this item I would jus t want to make it clear that the Minister, the House Leader implied that we were using his speeches and as a result the sessions were getting lengthy. I just want to have the records show that I've never used any of his speeches and I don't intend to. MR.

CH AIRMAN: (Paragraphs (2 ) to (7) were read and passe d. ) The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN : Mr. Chairman, I didn1 t wish to speak on se ven but I did wish that you put the unnumbered paragraph to the House to be passed as well, the paragraph that says, "The Committee also agreed that concurrence motions would be put on a departmental basis and would not be subj ect to amendment." I am asking that that paragraph be passed on the under standing that we would then se nd it to Legislative Co unsel for the purpose of drafting an appropriate rule. MR.

CH AIRMAN: I'll read the appropriate se ction here that after subsect ion 7 that the Committee also agreed that the con currence motions would be put on a departmental basis and would not be subj ec t to amendment. Passed? The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FRO ESE : Mr. Chairman, I rise not to oppose that particular

section but I just want to have it unders tood that when we do debate concurrence motions that we can refer to any aspect or any particular item in that particular department and not have to generalize .

384 March 24, 1972 MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR, GREEN : Mr. Chairman, I would ask the -indulgence of the honourable member to just repeat his last position becaus e I didn't hear it. MR, CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhi neland. MR. FR OESE : The position I take is that when we discuss concurrence motions of a particular department that we will not have to generalize but that we can refer to specifics contained in the department. I think this should be understood. MR, CHAIRMA N: The Honourable Member for Inkster� MR. GRE EN: Mr.

Chairman, my understanding is that the entire department wo uld then com e before the House for concurrence and that a person in making a 40-minute speech will be abl e to speak on anything that is contained within that department. MR, CH AIRMA N: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: . . . to clarify that perhaps one step further. He can speak on one specific item in that department or all of them? MR. GREEN: Correct. MR. CH AIRMAN: The last paragraph of (t) -- passed, (g) -- passed, (h) -- passed. The Honour able Member for Rhineland. MR.

FROE SE: I am not aware of what the discussion that took place, what the point at issue was at the time that the discussion took pl ace in this regard. Could we have some expl anation in connection with this particular se ction? MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: I'm going to speak from memory, Mr. Chairman, and if my memory is faulty then I ask other honourable members to assist me.

I believe that the notice says that two members se nd a notice to the Speaker giving-- saying that it is a person's intention to res ign and that" some peopl e felt well is the intention to res ign a res ignation but the Act sp ecif ically said that the "intention to resign" means that he has res igned and although those words are use d they work, members have effectively resigned in that way, and that we didn' t have to change the legislation although there was perhaps an ambiguity in the wording. That• s my recol lection. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR.

FRO ESE: There 'll be no change in the wording then. MR. GREEN: No. . MR. CH AIRMAN: (h) -- passed, (i) -- passed. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR, FROESE : Mr. Chairman, I noted t.hat by passing this se ction that we are se tting up a committee. Is this committee going to remain on the books indefinitely. I don't thirik that we should pass a rule which would do a thing like this and therefore I take exception to it. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, this is merely something that is left I think for the common se nse of members that -- we didn• t think that there was anything formal about this but we thought that if there were some requests, as there has been for instance, that there be sandwiches or some articles of food in addition to the drinking facilities -- when I say that I'm talking about soft drinks -- that are available in the Members' Lounge that we don't have to have some formal statutory provision for that, that members get together, discuss it with the Minister of Public works and he se es what can be done about it.

There have been improve ments that have occurred that way, By some magic we have been able to do som ething without legislation, without formal rules, and we thought that that should continue, that's alL MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE : Mr. Chairman, I don't object to having a committee to do this kind of work but to have them named in the rules, this . . . -- (Interje ction) -- This is part and parcel ot the rules that we are pass ing today. MR.

CH AIRMAN: For the benefit of the honourabl e member for Rhineland it is my unders tanding that what we are passing here are the recomm endations of the committee and these are not the rules. · Is that the unders tanding of the committee? MR. GR EEN .: Some of these are not rules, the ones that we passed over, (h ), is not a rule. It. merely is a recomm endation by the Rules Committee that doesn't require the draft ing of the rules. MR. CHAIRMAN: (i) -- passed, (j) -- passe d. The Honourable Member for Rhineland - on (j) , yes.

March 24, 1972 385 MR, FROE SE: Mr. Chairman, on (

j) I will not take exception to the change that we are making in the prayer itself if that is agreeabl e to the House it will be agreeable to me. But my ex c eption is that we instituted this without previously having it sanctioned by the Hous e. MR. CHAI RMAN: The Member for Inkster. MR, GRE EN: Mr. Chairman, on the item there is nothing that we coul d find in any where that specified what the Speaker must read. The Rules Committee reco mmended some thing that the Speaker should read.

I take it that the Speaker on his own decided that there was no res triction which was incumbent upon him to continue to reading the prayer as it was so he started reading it in a different way. I take it that that is tradition and what he was trying to do was es tablish a new one. The Rul es Committee is now recomm ending that -- and it won' t appear in the rules either -- that he follow this form of prayer. It was never a -- we couldn' t find a rule which specified what the Speaker must read. MR. CHAIRMA N: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR.

FROE SE: But by passing the proposals that are being submitted to the Committee of the Whole House now we are giving sanction to this. This hadn't had sanction previously and therefore I don• t think the change should have been made by the Speaker without having it sanctioned by the House. MR. CHAIRMA N: (j) -- passed, (k) -- the first two paragraphs. The Honourable Member for Inks ter. MR. GRE EN: Yah. Perhaps word of explanation is nece ssa ry here.

I know that when we were in opposition we wondered when will our resol ution come up and there was the thought that there was a race to get reso lutions in and by accident the first one that came in was the first one that was read and what we thought was that this should not be a matter of race, it should be a matter of equal rights to all members that on the -- before the Session opened all of the resol utions that came in would be compiled and their order would be drawn out of a hat rather than at the time that they were received. That is for the beginning.

After that they are of course put on the Order Paper as and when they are received. But this is just so that there isn't this hysteria to say will I get mine in before him, etc. Ev ery member will be treated equally regardless of when it came in before the House opens. MR. CHAIRMAN: (k) -- passed, (l) -- passed. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Chairman, the House Leader who is not here at the present time drew to my attention an anomaly in the wording of this particular rule and I wonder if we may not just change it to insure that it conforms with what our practices are in the Hous e.

It pres ently reads : "Rule 8 to be amended to read within two weeks of the opening of each Session the Speaker shall table a report of the proc eedings for the preceding year of the Board of Internal Ec onomy. " As honourable members know the Speaker does not table reports of this Chamber and I wonder if that could-be amended to read "the Speaker shall cause to be tabled a report of the proceedings for the" etc. MR. CHAIRM AN: Is that an amendment? Committee in agreement ? Passe d ? (m) (a) - passed, (b) -- passed, (

c) sub (4) -- passed, (5 ) -- passed, (m) -- passed, (n) -- passed, (o) -- passed -- . The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, with regard to (

o) I believe this is a sug ges tion of the Honourable Member for Morris and perhaps it would be wise that he just explain that a division should be called so that it's not considered that there was a unanimous vote. I think that• s the way he , .. MR. JORGENSON: What I was attempting to include here in a practice of this Hous e is a practice that has been carried on in the Hous e of Commons for many years and I find that it does save a lot of time.

There are occas ions when members do not wish to force a recorded vote because of the time it consumes and yet want to have some indication of an objection to a particular clause of a bill or some thing that is being passed in the Chamber and simply by saying "on division" ; it is then recorded in Hansard that that particular clause or whatever is being dealt with at the time is not passed by unanimous consent.

That does not preclude any member from forcing a recorded vote if he choose s but in the event that he is not really inter ested in forcing the recorded vote it does indicate that a claus e was not passed unanimously. MR. CH AIRMAN: (o) -- passed, (

p) passed --. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR, FROESE : Mr. Chairman, on (

p) I just want it unders tood that when statements are made available that they will be made available to all parties whether they are a recognized party or not. I notice it doesn't say "recognized party" so I take it that this will . . . .

386 March 24, 1972 MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, "parties" means only one thing in this Hous e and I don't wish to belabour the point. MR. CH AIRMAN: (p) -- passed, (q) -- passed, (

r) passed --. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: On (r), Mr. Ch airman, I would also like to suggest a change in the wording. It was agreed that where questions are put to a member after he has spoken for whatever time is allotted to that particular item, he would be permitted to reply only by the unanimous consent of the Hous e.

I think that should be changed to' read that the question asked wo uld be permitted only. by unanimous consen t of the Hous e, It would be a little bit unfair to have the ques tion put on the record without having the reply there so let• s stop the question in the first place. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inks ter. MR, GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I want to indicate that great minds think alike, because the Honourable 11Iinister of Finance asked me to make the very change that is now being pro pose d by the Honourable Member from Morris and we would concur with that and ask the clerk to make the appropriate wording. And then of course if no question is asked and the unanimous -- if a ques tion is asked, I take it by unanimous consent, then it would be implied that the answer could be given. MR. CHAIRMA N: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye, MR.

BARKMAN: Is the Honourable Member trying to say that all great minds have died and he is not feeling so well himself? MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if we could have that wording again to the Honourable Member for Inkster. MR.

GREEN; What he is saying, it was agreed that where a member's time has expired, ques tions can be put to him only on the unanimous consent of the House, And that is the sub stance of what the Honourable Member is saying and we hope that the Cler k's office and staff will be able to put that into wording so that it meets the approval of the House when this report comes back to the House as was done previously. MR. CHAIRl\lAN: \Yith that amendment -- the Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERN IAC K: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to suggest it might be simply done that where ques tions are proposed to be put to a member after he has spoken for whatever time is allotted, the question would be permitted onl y by the unanimous consent of the House. Does that take care of -- I think it's just a simple change in two or three places, would you like me to repeat it? MR, CHAIRMAN: Yes . MR.

CH ERNIACK: Wel l at the end of the first line, "where questions are proposed to be" -- at those words "to be" -- that would be put to a member after he has spoken for what ever time is allotted to that particular item; then instead of the word "he" you• d say the ques tion would be permitted and cross out the words "to reply" so it would read "the question would be permitted only by the unanimous cons ent of the House . " I am sug gesting that as a pre liminary . MR. JORGENSON: But does that assume there's a reply ? MR, CHE RNIACK : Oh, then, . . MR. JORGENSON: . . , MR.

CH ERNIACK: . . . may I say the practice has been that the speaker can refuse to permit a question and can refuse to reply to the question but then the Hous e itself has no control over it. Now I assume that it means now that if the House unanimously agrees to a question being put, then the Speaker may still refus e to answer the question but has the right to answer it. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR.

JORGENSON: I think what should be made clear here is the intention of this partic ular recomm endation, and the intention is si m ply there have been occas ions and I have been the -- it has affected me on particular times, where I had intended to follow a certain speaker and watching the clock very anxiously to make sure that I wouidn' t be denied that opportunity I find that a ques tion period following a speech could last as long as a half an hour which in the first place is contrary to our rules .

Although I have no objections to a ques tion for clarifica tion being asked, sometimes they need to be, that has not been the practice as I have se en it in this House. We have strayed from that -- the intention here is simply to safeguard the person

March 24 , 1972 387 (MR 0 JORGENSON cont'd) • . who is following to ensure that he is going to get time to deliver a speech that he is prepared to deliver , so that if he obj ects to a series of questions being asked he can refuse to give unanimous consent and get the floor immediately if he chooses to. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, just so that there is no misunderstanding, I would suggest that there should be a few words added to the end of that to clearly indicate that after the question has been put, provided it is in order and the spe aker would rule , that the member to whom the question is put may reply , so I would add the words after "unanimous consent of the house ," "and the member may reply if the question is in order" -- (Interje ction) -- "may reply". Well it means -- "may" means that it's discretionary on his part whether he reply or not. MR. CHAIR MAN: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR .

JORGENSON: If I may suggest Mr. Speaker , if that wording is left out, then it becomes much clearer. I think it can be logically assumed that if a question is permitted, the member under the rules that currently exist can or may or may not reply; he already has that right -- I don't know why it has to be included in this recomm endation. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR.

MACKLING: ... with all respect to the Member from Morr is, there is a time constraint provided in the rule as it is now being proposed and I suggest that as some of the questions take cons iderable time in the framing, and it could well be that members would be reluctant to see the Speaker rule a question in order and allow the member to answer properly. MR . CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Morr is. MR.

JORGENSON: The point is, and perhaps this refinement has es caped the Attorney General , it isn't the discretion of the Speaker, it is up to the Members of the House to deter mine whether or not any one member of the House can refuse to give unanimous consent and if he ref uses to give unanimous consent then the question is not permitted. It's as simple as that. MR .

CH AIRMAN: Now in order that everyone is quite clear , I'll read it as the proposed amendment reads: "Questions to members -- it was agreed that where questions are proposed to be put to a member after he has spoken for whate ver time is allotted to that particular item, the question would be permitted only by the unanimous consent of the Hous e." With that amend ment, are we in agreement? Passed. (

s) passed .•. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR . BEARD: ... MR . CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR 0 GREEN : I thought it was obvious but perhaps if it requires an explanation I'll give one, then he can make his remarks.

What was felt here is that nobody should get to what may be somebody called as a sne�k leave; that last year there was an occasion and although I won't concur with honourable members opposite, where one of the honourable members said "with leave I would like to do this," and then did it; and it escaped the opposition that he had asked for leave and the next day they thought that something amiss had taken place and only Hansard confirmed that leave was requested.

This rule is intended to say that unless the speaker says "leave" and people say "leave granted" that leave is not obtained merely by a member saying "with leave I would like to do this". The Minister of Finance often gets up and says "with leave I would llke to introduce Bill so and so" and it proceeds. What the rule says is that the Speaker will say "Doe s the Honourable Member have leave ?" and there will be a chorus of "ye s" I hope and then we pro ceed. If leave is not given, then he doesn't have leave. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Ch urchill. MR.

BEARD: Well , yes I was just going to say that there's -- what 55 of us -- if we 're all sleeping when somebody gets up and asks for leave , well then that's our fault. The fact that if each of us feel as perso nal representatives -- rather, if it's on this side there would be four of us that would have to get up and grant leave, then and this is wasting time. I feel in the opposite way that if we don't get up then we have in fact given consent.

It's only when we get up and protest that we are saying that we do not give leave, so I wouldn't like to see us have to get up each time that we agree to so mething; it's only when we really disagree that we should have to get up and make our intentions known.

388 March 24 , 1972 jl,ffi 0 CHA IRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rh ineland. MR . FROESE : Mr. Speaker I go along with the propos ition made here because I find so often that when I get up immediately the gover nment member s call for "has he got leave"; that situation doesn't arise when one of their party or their group is speaking and therefore I feel that this is quite in order MR . CHAIRMAN: Th e Honourable Attorney-General. lv'IR � MACKLING: We ll Mr . Chairman, I don't want to hold up consideration of this rule but -- (Interject ion) -- thank you for· all that support.

But I note that there are many items that appear to be prefaced by leave and I would ask that if this rule is adopted, that we ask Mr. Prud'h omme and Mr. Re eves to take a close look at the formalities that precede Fi rst Re adings of Bi lls for example, where the Minister has in his directional note that leave be granted to introduce Bi ll No. so and so for the Fi rst time , and if leave is, if we are going to have to require a formal request from the Speaker that leave be granted for ea.ch item of this nature , I think that we are going to have time delay in the House which we really don't want.

Now if that wording is unnecessary, let the wording be changed. MR . CHAIR MAN: Th e Member for Inkster. MR 0 GREEN : I think that the change here is only intended to deal with the questions.

Wh ere a member require s leave to do something I think that the leave to introduce a bill is merely the way of expressi ng it -- there is no leave necessary, that 's right; but if I have spoken in a debate and I wish to speak again , I would say "May I have leave from the Honour able Members to proceed in this debate a second time ?" then I should not be able to speak unless the Speaker says "Does the Honourable Me mber have leave ?" and the people say "leave granted" or anything else that can't be done in accordance with the rules.

I think that the Attorney-General is right that possibly some of our ways of introducing things due to parli amentary language that have existed for years and years , the use of the term "leave" - but I am certai n that the oppos ition or any other member of the House couldn't prevent first reading of a bi ll, because somebody says "I beg leave to introd uce Bill No. so and so" - (Interje ction) -- terrible, but that's got nothing to do with this rule. MR . CHAIR MAN: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR .

JOR GENSON: I think for the clarification of the Attorney-General what is meant in this instance -- you might just translate that -- instead of "l ea ve", "unanimous consent" , be cause this is really what you are asking for, the unanimous consent to proceed to do something which is not provided for under our rules. As long as a member or a Cabinet Minister is proceedi ng accor ding to the rules of this House he requires no leave even though it says so in the introduction of a bi ll. You don't require unanimous consent to introduce a bill as long as the rules up to that point have been complied with.

So what this suggestio n contains is simply an assurance on the part of all members that when somebody does ask for unanimous consent to proceed with something that is not provided for in the rules, that they are aware of what he is asking for and make their objections at that time rather than later. MR . CHA IRMAN: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR .

MACKLING: I was just drawing to the attention of the Me mbers of the House that there is the use of that word and I understand its long parl iamentary formal tradition and I have no objection to its continuance, so long as there is a clear understanding on the part of members that there is that disti nction that the Honourable Member for Morris makes; and I think that we understand that where the word "l eave" is used in a formal sense, "l e·ave" isn't neces sary to be granted by the Hou se at all.

Tha t's a formal expression, but where it's "leave" to do something beyond which the member has -a right or the Minister has a right that is a formal request for leave which must be put by the Speaker in the way intended by the rule. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . GRE.EN: Mr.

Chairman, perhaps we could clear this matter up by adopting the suggestion that was made by the Honourable Member from Morris and we change the wording to say "al though it appears to have become the practice in our House to assume that unanimous consent has been gr anted, merely because some member or members may say "agre ed" the co mmittee is of the opinion that the question of whether or not unanimous consent has been gr anted should be formally put by the Speaker and unanimous consent formally granted by the House. MR . JORGENSON: Use the word "unanimous consent" wherever "leave" appears in the

March 24 , 1972 389 (MR o JORGENSON cont'd) ..... rec ommendation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed ? Just in order that we may get this clear so that we are not go ing to adopt something that we may regret later , can we have that explained again so we can get it down correctly? MR 0 GREE N: Yes.

Matters requiring the unanimous consent of the House , instead of what it now says -- matters requir ing the unanimous consent of the House , although it appears to have bec ome the practice in our House to assume that unanimous consent has been granted merely because some member or members may say "agreed" the committee is of the opinion that the question of whether or not "unanimous consent" is being granted should be formally put by the Speaker and "unanimous consent" formally granted by the House. -- (Interjection) - Yeah, I'l l give it to you -- it'll be in Hansard tomorrow.

MRo CHAIRMAN: With that explanation, are we in agreement ? Agreed. (

s) as amended, -- passed, (

t) passed .. • The Honourable Member for Rh ineland. MR. FROES E : In connection with reports of Cr own Corporatio ns, I don't know what the discuss ion was in the Co mmittee again. I feel with the getting more and more Crown Co rpora tions into being that this whole matter should receive very careful consider ation; and that

whereas we have certain Crown Corporations reporti ng by way that the standing committees are meeting and then that the representatives of the se Crown Corporations appear .

I think this practice should be extended to include some other Crown Corporations than just Hydro and Telephone beca use with the increase in the number of Crown Corporatio ns, in order that the Legis lature and the members of the Legis lative Assembly can exercise a little more authority and question the whole set-up other than just havi ng que stioning the Minister as to the progre ss as to the future development and what have you , that it should be a requirement where at least where an indication has been made by a member of the House that such representatives should appear before a committee that such be done.

MRo GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I can see that the Honourab le Member is going to want to carry this forward. I wonder if he 'd indulge me in letting me interrupt him so that we can have the committee rise now; that he can deal with this matter when we meet again because the Honourable the Minister of Fi nance wishes to go to Supply in the last two minutes that we are here. , MRo CHAIRMAN: Oh yes, I move the committee rise. MRo CHAIRMAN: Co mmittee ri se. Call in the Speaker. MR 0 GREEN : . . . or can we go directly into Supp ly without reporting back to the . No. Co mmittee rise.

MRo CHAIRMAN: Committee rise and report. Ca ll in the Speaker. IN SESSION MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR 0 JENKINS: Mr . Speaker , I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Os bo rne , that the report of the Committee be receiv ed. MR 0 SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carr ied. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Minister of Fi nance. MRo CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Honourable the Attorney- General, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House reso lve itself into a Committee to consider the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MR. SPEAKER pre sented the motion and after a voice vote declared the m

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-4-18
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 4th hansardpdf 18.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7bca5bf557145834fd18382816c3d715df4fbe7b

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